Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Procurement (North-West)

Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the impact on the north-west of planned MOD procurement projects.

Lewis Moonie: The north-west was successful in winning defence business worth about£1.2 billion in 1998–99—some 14.5 per cent. of total defence equipment expenditure—sustaining in the process an estimated 11,000 jobs. The current equipment programme offers significant opportunities, such as the joint strike fighter and the future carrier, for companies in the north-west to compete to sustain that level of business.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. What consideration is he giving to the important contract for which Leyland Trucks is tendering, involving an important part of supply to the armed forces? The company has held the contract in the past and it is coming up for renewal. What support can he offer for the thousands of jobs that depend on it?

Lewis Moonie: I am well aware that Leyland Trucks Ltd. is one of five companies invited to tender for the role of prime contractor for the supply of approximately 8,500 support vehicles over a 10-year period that is planned to start in late 2004. It is too early to give an indication of the specific industrial implications of the planned programme, but there will certainly be opportunities for subcontractors at least in the north-west.

Bernard Jenkin: May I point out to the Minister the cuts in defence announced by the Government since the last defence questions? They scrapped HMS Fearless nearly nine months early, so there will be no assault ship in the British Navy until the end of 2003. They scrapped HMS Sheffield, which was due to remain in service until 2012. They scrapped the Navy's Sea Harriers, which were due to remain in service until 2015. Those announcements followed the decision to scrap 5 Squadron—the Tornado fighters due to remain in service until the deployment of the Eurofighter.
	The Government have delayed, cut or cancelled the Tracer ground reconnaissance vehicle, the future offensive aircraft system, the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, Brimstone—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some of those delays or cancellations should have taken place in the north-west.

Bernard Jenkin: I regret that the list is long, Mr. Speaker, but how can the Minister give any assurances to manufacturers in the north-west until he has the money that the Treasury has so far refused him? Or is it to be cuts, cuts and more cuts in defence under this Government?

Lewis Moonie: I suppose that I should have started by requesting your permission to make a statement,Mr. Speaker. However, I shall attempt to make my answer rather shorter.
	I do not recall that any of those points had much to do with the north-west. However, on HMS Fearless in particular, while the ship has given sterling service, it is not considered financially worth while to spend more money on maintaining her in service for the short time that she will be needed. We have adequate assault capability through HMS Ocean and other ships at our disposal. It is not true to say that the early scrapping of HMS Fearless will have any constructive effect on our ability to deploy.

Russia-NATO Relations

Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on steps to improve the relationship between Russia and NATO.

Geoff Hoon: The United Kingdom has taken a leading role in encouraging a step change in NATO's relationship with Russia. A confident and co-operative partnership between the allies and Russia, based on shared democratic values and the shared commitment to a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe is essential for stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area. The alliance and Russia are working towards the creation of a new NATO-Russia council to identify and pursue opportunities for joint action at 20. NATO will maintain its prerogative of independent decision and action at 19 on the alliance's fundamental objectives.

Phyllis Starkey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he outline some of the more practical measures to encourage joint working between Russia and NATO on issues of mutual interest?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her interest in this important subject. We are keen to develop the relationship with Russia as an essential further element of building stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area. The practical measures that we have in mind include co-operation against terrorism, dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, peace support operations and new threats. Those are areas where NATO can seek to deepen its involvement with Russia immediately.

Mark Prisk: My question relates to the NATO-Russian council. Given the sensitivity of new members from eastern Europe that are now part of the alliance, will the Secretary of State confirm that he sees no danger of possible conflict between the existing North Atlantic Council and the NATO-Russian council? What is the Government's position on the council's remit?

Geoff Hoon: There cannot be a conflict because the existing council will have to agree to any areas of deeper consultation with Russia.
	Having recently met my Czech counterpart both in Prague and in the United Kingdom, I certainly recognise that there are different perspectives on this important issue, which is, welcomed by countries such as the Czech Republic as a means of ensuring closer contact and deeper consultation with Russia.

John Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and the fact that NATO and Russia will work much more closely together, but can he assure the House that that closer relationship will not have any bearing whatever on the decision to enlarge NATO at the Prague summit?

Geoff Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Having recently visited three of the candidate countries where that issue is obviously extremely important and sensitive, I assure him and the House that there will be no relationship between the two issues.

Paul Keetch: I, too, welcome what the Secretary of State has said about improved relations between NATO and Russia, but, following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), can he tell the House whether that improvement is, in effect, dependent on the expansion of NATO? What happens at Prague will be an important test for NATO's relationship with Russia, so does he agree that any proposed enlargement of NATO presents no threat to Russia? Are Her Majesty's Government supporting all the applicant countries, especially the three Baltic states?

Geoff Hoon: Working backwards on those questions, no decision has yet been taken by Her Majesty's Government on which of the candidates should be offered an invitation. As I have said already, there is no relationship between this issue and enlargement. Although this is clearly also subject to the views of allies, it is certainly the preferred view of Her Majesty's Government that this matter should proceed quickly—that is, before enlargement is resolved.

Peter Viggers: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the bodies working for a closer understanding between NATO and Russia is the NATO Parliamentary Assembly? Indeed, the largest-ever conference and seminar between NATO parliamentarians and Russian elected representatives will take place in Moscow later this week. Does he agree that Russia is apparently growing towards a feeling that it is in its own interest to be surrounded by prosperous and democratic countries and that, if the Baltic states wish to join NATO and that wish is accepted, NATO could even play some part in improving the situation in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad?

Geoff Hoon: I pay tribute to the work conducted by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It is important to have a range of contacts at every level between the democratic elements of Russia and allies in NATO, and I am delighted that that process continues. Having recently visited the Baltic states, and having discussed Kaliningrad at length, I recognise that there are issues, but that they can be resolved—if the House accepts this—not necessarily in the context of NATO, but certainly in that of the European Union and the free movement that the EU requires of member states. However, I was assured that that issue was being regularly discussed and that it presented no difficulty whatever to the accession of the Baltic states to NATO or, indeed, the EU.

Forces (Manning Levels)

David Cameron: What progress has been made in reaching full manning levels in the RAF; and if he will make a statement.

Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on trends in manning levels of regular forces since 1997.

Adam Ingram: At 1 May 1997, the deficit for the Royal Air Force stood at 4.8 per cent. At 1 February 2002, that deficit was 2.4 per cent. By any standard, that is good progress. Turning to trends overall, there continues to be a shortfall in trained strength against trained requirement. However, I am pleased to report that, across the services overall, recruitment is favourable and retention is holding steady.

David Cameron: I thank the Minister for that answer, but perhaps the raw figures should be considered instead of the percentages, and they show that the RAF was short of 1,149 personnel in January. Is he aware of the widespread concern that the Government plan to reduce the shortfall between actual and total manning strength by closing bases and scrapping squadrons, rather than by improving recruitment and retention? What assurance can he give to the many thousands of my constituents who work at or around the RAF base at Brize Norton that the Government will make an effort with recruitment and retention, rather than closing the squadrons in which they serve?

Adam Ingram: I am surprised at such criticism from the hon. Gentleman about the RAF base in his constituency. In the past few weeks, we have made a major announcement that will have a significant impact at Brize Norton. Clearly, we have to ensure that all our recruitment and retention strategies are as well focused as possible. He will be aware of the significant effort that is put into that, particularly in relation to RAF aircrew retention packages, about which a major announcement was made on an improved enhancement structure. We are conscious of all those issues and considerable effort will continue to be made to ensure that we not only retain our skilled crews, but recruit people into the RAF.

Robert Syms: Overstretch and undermanning seem to be the most serious problems. We know that the Army is 8,000 under strength and will perhaps only reach full manning by 2008, yet we are taking on new commitments daily. What new initiatives do the Government have to recruit more troops now?

Adam Ingram: Again, we recently announced a significant uplift in the remuneration package for the services. Having said that, part of the assessment of how we intend to encourage people to join the forces is not necessarily based on remuneration. There are many other pulls and draws to encourage people to join the different services, including the Army. A wide range of initiatives is in place, including the remuneration and operational welfare packages. We are also considering how to deal with family welfare. The taskforce that I chair, which goes across Government, is examining ways to improve on some of the stresses and strains experienced by service families. As I said, recruitment is doing well in current circumstances with a significant increase in Army strength of 800 in the past six months alone.

David Crausby: In light of the changing nature of the threat facing us, what consideration has my right hon. Friend given to stationing regular forces in different parts of the country, such as the north-west, which is a major recruiting ground for the armed forces?

Adam Ingram: That is one issue that we need to address. It is important to consider the imbalance throughout the country in terms of the footprint of where bases are located. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on record as saying that the problem needs to be tackled. The focus has been on the south-east for a variety of historical reasons. As we rationalise and improve the focus of some of our basing activities, we are considering how to improve that footprint across the whole country, including the north-west.

Stephen Hepburn: I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Poole(Mr. Syms) on recruitment. South Tyneside has traditionally been a great area for armed forces recruitment. Is the Minister aware that there were 826 recruits from the region in 1997 and 902 in 1999, but that last year the figure plummeted to 420? Is that because youngsters think that they are more likely to be shot in Baghdad or Kabul, or is there a budgetary crisis? If there is not a budgetary crisis, will the Minister work with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discover why recruitment is so low?

Adam Ingram: It is for neither of those reasons. People who serve in our armed forces do so with great pride. They recognise that they may have to make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of their country, and they do so. I said that overall Army strength has increased by 800 in the past six months alone. Substantial recruitment is taking place in some parts of the country, although we are not doing so well in other areas. That is why we are involved in various initiatives to discover why there is a recruitment shortfall in some areas and, if recruitment has dropped off, why. We also want to know what additional commitment we could make to particular areas to increase the levels to at least what they were before. I referred earlier to the range of initiatives in place to encourage people in the north-east to join all parts of the armed forces, not just the Army.

James Gray: The Minister is putting what could be described as either a brave face or a complacent face on an extremely worrying situation. The truth of the matter is that we are short of 131 pilots in the RAF, 8,000 soldiers and hundreds of people in the Royal Navy. We simply do not have enough soldiers, sailors and airmen to carry out the difficult tasks that they already have, and the statement this afternoon by the Secretary of State may, for all we know, add more tasks to that list. When does the Minister intend that all three services should be fully manned? Will he put his job on the line and guarantee that they will be fully manned so that they can carry out their difficult tasks?

Adam Ingram: It would be a brave Minister who put his job on the line over such a question. I have indicated the range of initiatives that we are taking. We could spend considerable time looking at some of the RAF's problems with the training of pilots and at the reasons for the shortfall, which goes back several years to when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. There was great demoralisation in the 1990s. This party addressed that in 1997, and we have given greater focus to the armed services. We have now embarked on major procurement strategies to lift the quality of equipment, some of which is inadequate for the job. We inherited that problem too, and we are having to address it, so any criticism from Opposition Members is grossly misplaced.
	The whole strategic defence review and the operations to which we have committed our troops in recent years have proved highly successful. The hon. Gentleman should know that his party was critical of our Macedonian deployment. We said that we would be in and out in30 days, and we were. Not once did we hear from the Conservative party any acknowledgement of that success; not once did Opposition Members say, "Well done. The Government got it right." All we get is carping and criticism—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Kidney: At RAF Stafford, there are more civilian workers than services personnel. Will my right hon. Friend keep a watchful eye out for opportunities to base more service personnel at Stafford? Will he acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the civilian work force, who enable our services to complete their full range of duties?

Adam Ingram: The civilian staff, who number about 100,000, against an overall strength of about 200,000, clearly make a major commitment to the wide range of services that our armed forces are called on to deliver.I pay tribute to all who serve, either in the armed forces or in support of them, and to their efforts, especially when our forces are deployed in the dangerous circumstances that apply in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

Afghanistan

Hugh Robertson: If he will make a statement on troop deployments in Afghanistan.

Geoff Hoon: Around 1,600 United Kingdom service personnel are currently deployed with the international security assistance force in Kabul. I will make a statement to the House later today on our plans for future deployments.

Hugh Robertson: Given the difficult security situation, which is likely to continue for some time, and the desire of the Afghan Government and their people for troops to remain in Afghanistan for a protracted period, does the Secretary of State foresee an extension to the deployment beyond July? Will British troops be part of that? What will trigger a withdrawal?

Geoff Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the current United Nations mandate is scheduled to last only until June. However, I would be being less than honest with the House if I did not anticipate an extension. It is a matter for the UN, but any reasonable person looking at the situation in Afghanistan would have to say that there was a likelihood—I put it no stronger than that—of the UN wanting to extend the mandate. Obviously, any British participation will be contingent on the situation of our armed forces at the time, and on whether we feel that we can make a contribution to what will still, I am sure, as the hon. Gentleman has conceded, be a dangerous, difficult situation.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is reported that President Bush said last week that there is no place for politics in fighting the war. Does my right hon. Friend agree that politics is integral to fighting the war against terrorism because it ensures that military action is directed towards justice and not revenge? In that context, does he agree that there should be no extension of hostilities towards Iraq, and that an attack on Iraq should not be countenanced without further authorisation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The subject is Afghanistan.

Mark Francois: The Secretary of State will recall that when he made his statement to the House three months ago announcing the original deployment, he intimated fairly strongly that, with the exception of headquarters troops, three months would be the maximum period. We are now told that it will be six months, and he has just intimated that it could be even longer. When will the Ministry of Defence take effective action to make sure that other European partners bear a fair share of the burden, because our armed forces are overstretched enough as it is?

Geoff Hoon: I apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman if I gave him that impression. If he reads my comments more carefully, I am sure that he will see that I did not commit the United Kingdom's armed forces to anything at all. I indicated the importance of considering the situation at the time. If he had to deal with those situations, I am sure that, being fair-minded and reasonable, he would come to precisely the same conclusion.

Syd Rapson: Would the Secretary of State consider visiting Royal Marine headquarters in Portsmouth in my constituency to pass on the nation's grateful thanks for what the Royal Marines are doing, with our special services, in Afghanistan? Their contribution is unheralded and unpublicised, but efficient and very effective.

Geoff Hoon: I will certainly be willing to do that. I am sure that if my hon. Friend has the time to stay for my statement to the House later, he will learn still more about the plans for the Royal Marines.

Arms Exports

Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the role played by his Department in the promotion of arms exports.

Lewis Moonie: The Defence Export Services Organisation, within the Ministry of Defence, is responsible for co-ordinating Government support to industry in promoting legitimate defence exports. Other areas within the Department provide assistance as required.

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of the work done by senior economists in his Department, as well as by independent academics, that suggests that the economic benefits of such export sales are negative? In particular, is he aware of the York study's conclusion that if arms exports were cut by half within the life of a Parliament, the national income would be unchanged, and there would be a net gain of jobs from civil redeployment? In view of that, why are the Government promoting arms exports in highly inflamed situations, such as with the export of Hawks to the Indian subcontinent?

Lewis Moonie: An independent study by two leading academic economists and two MOD economists into the economic costs and benefits of defence exports was published on 11 December last year. The Government broadly agree with its findings. It concluded that, rather than being subsidised, defence exports represented a significant net benefit to Government and to the UK economy more broadly. The study reported that defence export sales averaged about £6 billion in 1998 and 1999, and supported almost 100,000 jobs, many of which are high-quality jobs in cutting-edge industry. Its conclusions suggested that the ending of defence exports from the UK would involve a one-off adjustment cost of between£4 billion and £5 billion, which is equivalent to about0.5 per cent. of one year's gross domestic product. In addition, there would be a continuous net cost to Government of between £90 million and £200 million.

European Defence Co-operation

Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on progress in multinational defence co-operation in Europe.

Geoff Hoon: Both the NATO defence capabilities initiative and the European capabilities action plan encourage nations to co-ordinate their efforts and work together in enhancing military capabilities.
	The United Kingdom participates in a wide range of successful multinational co-operative arrangements, such as the UK-Netherlands amphibious force andthe European air group. We also operate daily in multinational formations in the Balkans. We are actively seeking to build on such experiences and initiatives. The United Kingdom and France reviewed recently the work conducted under the letter of intent on naval co-operation signed in 1996, and further useful progress has been made.

Nick Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Anyone except the most fanatical of Europhobes would accept that progress in this area is valuable. Can he give further concrete examples of projects on which we work with our European allies, and of the impact on our defence capability?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this subject. As he indicates, this is hardly an area where there ought to be any kind of criticism at all. By improving our joint capabilities, we are clearly enhancing the ability of European nations to contribute not only to their own defence but equally to the defence of others through the NATO alliance. One practical example is our work with Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden to develop a Nordic brigade under the Nordic co-ordinated arrangement for military peace support. I shall attend the conference of NORDCAPS Ministers in April.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State recall the advice that his office gave to No. 10's foreign policy adviser that, if an EU-led force goes into Macedonia at this stage,
	"the fledgling European Security and Defence Policy mechanism is not ready to undertake an operation of this magnitude and risk".
	The advice continues:
	"An EU-led operation in Macedonia would not be 'premature' but simply wrong."
	I congratulate the Secretary of State on the forthright position that his Department took and remind him that, by contrast, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said:
	"if we do look like becoming isolated, we would do better to accept an EU mission".
	What was the outcome of that disagreement in view between his Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Geoff Hoon: Of course, there are never any disagreements between different Departments, or between hon. Members. However, I have to note the exception to my earlier comments about Members taking a sensible view of European initiatives.
	To bring the hon. Gentleman completely up to date, I refer him to the outcome of the Barcelona summit that considered the possibility of European Union operations in Macedonia. It was a very good outcome that reflected the prudent British approach to the issue. It allows the European Union to make decisions later in the year on the basis of military advice and after agreement has been reached on permanent arrangements for EU access to NATO capabilities and staffs.

John McFall: I remind my right hon. Friend that the regular forces at Faslane in my constituency will, as ever, wish to play their part in the multilateral defence force. However, the need for harmony at the naval base is important and the concerns of the civilian work force should also be considered. He knows that my colleagues from Portsmouth, Plymouth and Rosyth have been pressing the case for the civilian work force in the naval warship modernisation programme. Does he recognise the loyalty and the commitment that the work force have shown and accept that the status quo is not an option? Will he allow them to play their full part in any proposals regarding multilateral defence force co-operation?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend and I have had regular discussions about the excellent work conducted at the Ministry of Defence naval yards. He and I recognise that the working arrangements and practices of those places cannot remain at a standstill, and I pay tribute to the work force's efforts to try to find new ways of organising their work. The Government have yet to take a decision about how the matter will go forward, but I assure him that we will take fully into account the views of the work force concerned.

Bernard Jenkin: May I point out to the Secretary of State that the document quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was an account of the military advice that had been given? It said:
	"Military advice is that the fledgling European Security and Defence Policy mechanism is not ready to undertake an operation of this magnitude and risk . . . There would be a real risk that the EU's first mission would end in failure".
	By agreeing in Barcelona to an EU operation, has not the Prime Minister chosen to ignore the military advice for reasons of politics and nothing else?

Geoff Hoon: Before the hon. Gentleman asks questions of that kind, he should read the text of the Barcelona summit statements. It says that it will allow the EU to make decisions later in the year on the basis of military advice.

Bernard Jenkin: I put it to the Secretary of State that we have the military advice already. Besides, the Government have always given the assurance, in the words of the Prime Minister, that
	"European defence would operate only when NATO chooses not to be engaged".—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 349.]
	NATO has not been given any right of first refusal in this case, so why has the Prime Minister betrayed that assurance?

Geoff Hoon: Again, all I can do is refer the hon. Gentleman to the details of what was agreed. He is trying very hard to suggest that something other than what was actually agreed was decided upon. However, if he looks very carefully, he will see that the EU said that it could take decisions later in the year on the basis of military advice. That seems to me to be a wholly sensible, practical reaction to the very difficult situation in Macedonia. Had he read the text carefully, I would have thought that he would have strongly supported that view.

David Heath: The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of the amphibious capabilities of the United Kingdom and its co-operating allies. Naval capacity is fundamental to that, so when will the two new carriers, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, enter service? Given that there is only one bespoke helicopter carrier—HMS Ocean—has any thought been given to permanently converting one of the old carriers for rotary-wing use in the way that one was deployed recently?

Geoff Hoon: The timetable for procurement is proceeding according to previous announcements; there has been no change to it. We certainly look consistently at the range of capabilities, including platforms required for military operations. However, I am entirely confident that the present plans and proposals meet the needs of the United Kingdom, as expressed in the strategic defence review and as part of the work currently being conducted in response to the appalling events of 11 September.

Territorial Army

Gregory Barker: What his policy is on the Territorial Army.

Lewis Moonie: The strategic defence review concluded that the main role of the Territorial Army should be to provide an essential reinforcement for its Regular Army counterparts when deployed on operations. In keeping with that, both volunteer and regular reservists have contributed significantly to operations at home and overseas in recent times.
	The strategy for the Army, announced in March last year, identified a number of areas where further study was required to ensure that it can undertake its role as effectively and efficiently as possible. Those studies are ongoing and include how to maximise the contribution of the reserves in an expeditionary environment. In parallel, work on a new chapter of the strategic defence review, following the 11 September attacks, is exploring the role that the armed forces, including the reserves, have in defending and protecting the United Kingdom.

Gregory Barker: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he now admit that it was a catastrophic mistake by the Government since coming to power in 1997 to slash the Territorial Army by more than 18,000 men? Now that it has 2,000 fewer members than his own target of 41,000, how does he expect the hard-pressed TA to cope with the additional responsibility of homeland defence?

Lewis Moonie: The cut in TA numbers was entirely appropriate, given the end of the cold war and the reconfiguration of reserve forces.

Bernard Jenkin: The Secretary of State said it was a mistake.

Lewis Moonie: No, it was not mistake. To put the record straight, the Secretary of State said that initial assumptions involved a much larger cut than the one that was in fact made; the number of reserves therefore remains much higher than might otherwise have been the case—[Interruption.] I am sorry to have to point out to the Opposition that the cold war ended some years ago and that armed forces, even reserves, configured for the cold war have no relevance whatsoever to the situation in which we find ourselves. Reserve forces today are appropriately trained and are of an appropriate number to handle the many tasks that we give them as forces much closer to the regulars than they ever were under the previous Administration.

Nicholas Soames: Uncharacteristically, that was a less than frank answer from the Minister. It may have escaped his notice that the previous Administration made a serious cut in TA numbers at the end of the cold war; the cut made by the hon. Gentleman's Government was indeed a cut too far. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman wrote me a letter on 4 March in which he said, in reply to a parliamentary question, that he was unable to provide the
	"strength and establishment of the TA by unit and location"
	as that information was not available? May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he now reassess the stance of the TA, finding out where it is and what it does, thus producing for Parliament an altogether more coherent, responsible and sensible plan on the deployment of the TA?

Lewis Moonie: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the structure, function and roles of the TA. The fact that it may be inappropriate to provide a reply on the grounds of cost is well recognised in the civil service; the answer that the hon. Gentleman received was no exception to that. I point out again that our TA forces today are better trained, have higher morale and are far more appropriate than they ever were under any Administration to whom the hon. Gentleman belonged.

Gerald Howarth: I have to say that it is perfectly clear from the Minister's answer that the Government are in a shambles when it comes to our reserve forces. Not only is he out of step with his Secretary of State, who at least had the courtesy to acknowledge that we were right all along in warning that drastic cuts to the TA would damage our armed forces, but he was unable to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Mid–Sussex (Mr. Soames) where those reserve forces are located. It is high time that the Government answered the question that my hon. Friend put to the Minister. Will the Minister tell us when the cuts will be reversed, and give the House an assurance that any extension of TA responsibilities to homeland defence will not be at the expense of its valuable role reinforcing our regular troops?

Lewis Moonie: I suppose that, by convention, I must welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that, during future questions, he will perhaps be better informed than he is just now. Let there be no doubt—I am well aware of where our units are and of what they comprise. It is hardly surprising that I am unaware of the exact numbers in each unit, given the amount of work that we in the Ministry of Defence have to do.
	A key part of the new chapter work is exploring the role of the armed forces, including the reserves, in defending and protecting the United Kingdom. The SDR aims to make the TA more relevant, more usable and more integrated with its regular counterparts. The fact that Opposition Members seem to think it appropriate to return to the old TA, consisting of static infantry battalions that would be of no use to anyone, reflects very much to their discredit.

Joint Strike Fighter

Ross Cranston: What progress has been made in advancing United Kingdom participation in the joint strike fighter project since the selection of Lockheed Martin as a contractor.

Lewis Moonie: A number of UK companies are already closely involved with the joint strike fighter project as part of the Lockheed Martin team. Work is in progress on arrangements for placing lower-tier contracts, for which a range of UK companies are expected to tender. The Ministry of Defence is facilitating such involvement, and earlier this month it hosted a well-attended briefing day for industry.

Ross Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer; Members on both sides of the House will doubtless welcome news about progress on the joint strike fighter project. However, may I ask him a very blunt question? What does that news mean for jobs in this country, and for manufacturing and engineering jobs in the west midlands in particular?

Lewis Moonie: I am very well aware of the valuable contribution made by west midlands companies to our effort and procurement. The Government's decision to participate in the joint strike fighter project could reap as much as £3 billion for the UK economy in the system development and demonstration phase, and a potential further £24 billion for downstream production activities. On employment, the demonstration phase should sustain or create some 3,500 high-technology jobs nationwide, potentially rising to 8,500 in a few years' time. The west midlands will be one of the main regions to benefit; in particular, Smiths Industries will be heavily involved in work on the standing take-off, vertical-landing variant.

John Wilkinson: May I remind the Minister that the joint strike fighter is, among its other roles, supposed to be a naval fighter? For that purpose, it is most important to have naval aviators with recent fixed-wing experience. Is it not therefore extraordinary that, before the joint strike fighter comes into service—indeed, perhaps some four or five years before—the Fleet Air Arm should lose its fixed-wing aviation and have its Sea Harriers withdrawn from service?

Lewis Moonie: Sea Harriers are being withdrawn from service because the Air Force considered it a waste to spend a great deal of money on updating them. That decision does not affect the pilots' future employment. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, they will be integrated into the joint Harrier project, and all of them will be retained in service. There will be no problem with the retention of pilots and, ultimately, the joint strike fighter's coming into service will enhance capability on board our carriers.

A400M

Laurence Robertson: When he expects to sign a production contract for the A400M.

Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the A400M programme.

Lewis Moonie: The A400M development and manufacture contract between OCCAR, which is acting as agent for the eight nations participating in the A400M programme, and Airbus Military was signed on 18 December 2001. The contract will become effective once Germany has gained Bundestag funding approval and is therefore able to make its full commitment to the programme.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Of course, he touched on the vital point, which is when Germany will confirm the number of aircraft that it will order. What will be the minimum number of aircraft Germany will need to make the project viable in terms of development costs? What discussions has he had about the content of Rolls-Royce engines? That aspect is very important to a company in my constituency, Dowty Propellers, which hopes to have a great input into the project.

Lewis Moonie: Germany has promised to order 73 of the aircraft. In Berlin the week before last, I had discussions with my opposite number in the German Defence Department and stressed to him the importance of proceeding with the contract. He appeared in no doubt that—provided of course that the present Administration are returned at the next election—there will be no problem with Germany's continuing participation in the programme. With regard to Rolls-Royce, I am well aware of the importance that the project has for future employment and we are losing no opportunity to bring that to the company's attention.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister return to the issue of the number of planes being ordered by Germany? He does not appear to have a fallback position if the Administration are not returned or do not confirm the numbers about which he sounds so optimistic.

Lewis Moonie: We have to rely on the information that we have at the present time. There is little point in speculating about what will happen, as the Germans assure us that the contract will be signed and that the appropriate number of aircraft will be involved. Clearly, should that not be the case, we will have to re-evaluate our position on the cost of the aircraft and whether the programme is still viable. However, at present I am convinced of the Germans' intention to go ahead with the project at the number specified.

Afghanistan

Richard Ottaway: What representations he has made in the last two months to his European counterparts regarding the extension of the international security assistance force's mandate beyond six months; and if he will make a statement.

Geoff Hoon: I have regular discussions with my European counterparts on a variety of issues, including the international security assistance force. As I have already indicated to the House, any extension of the force beyond six months would require a decision by the United Nations Security Council.

Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. In January, he indicated to the House that the bulk of the British troops would be deployed only for three months. In the circumstances, can he say which nations will make up the bulk of the six-month deployment and exactly what is the position with Turkey at the moment?

Geoff Hoon: I will make a statement to the House later this afternoon in which I will deal with those issues. However, I can say that discussions are continuing with Turkey, which has expressed an interest in taking on the leadership role in the ISAF. In recent discussions, we have felt more confident of its ability to do so.

First World War Soldiers (Pardons)

Vera Baird: If she will take steps to obtain pardons for soldiers executed during the first world war.

Lewis Moonie: The question of granting pardons to those executed during the first world war was the subject of a careful and detailed review by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), the then Minister for the Armed Forces. The legal difficulties in considering pardons were fully explained in his statement to the House on 24 July 1998.
	The position has not changed but that should not obscure the important and very positive steps taken to recognise those men as victims of the war and to remember them among their fallen comrades. Their public commemoration in the new memorial in the national memorial arboretum is very fitting.

Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. I ask him to consider two factors that have reignited the issue for some of my Redcar constituents. The first is that New Zealand passed the Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act in 2000, which pardoned the few people that it had executed in the first world war, thus showing that it can still be done. The second is that the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission routinely reviews convictions that are more than 50 years old, including executions, and makes sensible suggestions. Do not those two factors together suggest that a short independent inquiry might be able to give at least some people more satisfaction?

Lewis Moonie: Again, I should refer my hon. Friend to the careful and well-researched statement that the Minister made in 1998. The whole subject has been considered with great sympathy and care. The review took a wide range of expert legal, medical and historical advice from within and from outside the MOD, including from those who seek pardons. The representations from the families of those who were executed and the views of surviving veterans of the war were of course fully considered, as was surviving evidence on the individual cases.
	We understand that many people still seek pardons for the executed men, but pardons are an exceptional legal remedy requiring a level of evidence that, particularly in relation to medical matters, no longer survives. However, the difficulties over considering pardons should not obscure the important measures that have been taken publicly to recognise those who were executed as victims of the war.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister is right to say that this subject is far from simple. He may recall from the history books that when many of the executions took place there were mass desertions from the French army and that, rightly or wrongly, it was feared that similar events might occur in the British Army. He is also right to mention the national memorial arboretum at Alrewas in my constituency. If he has not already visited it, may I invite him and his colleagues to see that fitting memorial to those who tragically lost their lives?

Lewis Moonie: Yes. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have every intention of visiting the national memorial arboretum in the near future, and I shall of course inform him, as a local Member, when that visit is to take place.

Type 45 Destroyer

Neil Turner: What the spending implications are of the revised procurement strategy for type 45 destroyers; and if he will make a statement.

Lewis Moonie: The revised procurement strategy announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July 2001 on the type 45 provides better value for money to the taxpayer, secures welcome stability for our warship-building industry and preserves the possibility of future competition for a number of naval programmes. The £2 billion order for the first six ships was confirmed on 18 February 2002. Once completed and fully equipped with their principal anti-air missile system, the overall procurement cost for the six ships will be£4.3 billion.

Neil Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can the good news that he has announced on savings be applied to future contracts to ensure that we get increased capability and best value for the taxpayer?

Lewis Moonie: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Value for money remains the cornerstone of our procurement policy, with competition a key means to achieve that. The revised type 45 strategy shows that, through smart acquisition, the Government, working with industry, can deliver key national defence industrial capability and ensure best value for money. In the type 45 decision, as in other contracts, the implications for the UK defence industrial base are always considered before any procurement decision is reached.

Anne McIntosh: May I remind the House that I served with the armed forces parliamentary scheme on HMS Cumberland, where we saw at first hand the work that the fleet is doing? In answer to a previous question, the Minister referred to Sea Harriers remaining in harness until the new aircraft come into operation. When will the type 45s be available for operations, and what is the deadline for the Sea Harriers to come out of action and the new aircraft to go into service?

Lewis Moonie: The pilots will continue in service; the Sea Harriers will be withdrawn. That is what I said.
	The armed forces have carefully considered the implications for the next few years, and the type 45s will come into full service in 2007, with their armaments. Given that our procurement strategy is very successful, that date will be met. Until then, there is a perfectly adequate screen of protection available for our carriers and any forces that we send abroad. We have been guaranteed of that, and it was very relevant to the decision on the Sea Harriers.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend is aware that the type 45 contracts were signed in my constituency; may I thank him on behalf of the constituents and those who work in all the yards affected by the decision? Has the strategic review considered any future ships so that we can meet the needs of the coming century? The yards of Scotstoun and Govan will be only too happy to build any more ships that he wishes to announce.

Lewis Moonie: I am sure they are, and I await their bids with interest. In addition to the type 45, there will be work on future carriers to be considered. That will provide opportunities for shipyards and other companies to compete for further much-needed business.

Patrick Mercer: During a visit last week to the dockyards in Scotland with the Select Committee on Defence, we found HMS Monmouth lying untended in dry dock, where she had been since January. No work had been carried out on her, her crew is lying idle, and the workers who would normally work on her are unable to do so. Would the Minister care to comment on that?

Lewis Moonie: Being completely unaware of the situation, the comment that I shall make is that I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Military Presence (North-West)

Brian Iddon: What the size of the military presence in north-west region is; and if he will make a statement.

Ann Coffey: What the size of the military presence is in north-west region; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: As at July 2000, there were 1,904 service personnel based in the north-west. In addition, there are 2,128 civilian Ministry of Defence staff and more than 4,000 reserve forces based in the region.

Brian Iddon: Under this Government, unemployment has fallen significantly throughout the north-west. Has that had any significant impact on recruitment to the armed forces in our region?

Adam Ingram: Undoubtedly. One of the characteristics that we are having to deal with is fuller employment in all the regions where before we would have had very good recruitment returns. Because of that, we have to renew our efforts and raise our game, so to speak, to ensure that we continue to attract the high-quality recruits that we need. The north-west is one of the areas in which we have a very good record of recruitment—one of the highest in the country.

Ann Coffey: I am pleased to learn that there are 4,000 reserves based in the north-west. As my right hon. Friend's Department is undertaking a new chapter in the strategic defence review to consider a greater role for the reserves in homeland defence, will he confirm that the north-west should see an increase in the number of reserves in future?

Adam Ingram: That is an important question because the new chapter, which has been mentioned in responses to previous questions, will clearly have an important impact across the wide reach of our armed forces, not least in the reserves and the territorials. It is too soon to say precisely what the impact of any change in activity will be on the regional footprint, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is kept up to date with any changes in her area.

Veterans

Betty Williams: What steps he is taking to improve the handling of veterans' issues.

Lewis Moonie: Since the announcement of the veterans initiative, and my appointment as Minister with responsibility for veterans' affairs one year ago, we have built up a partnership with veterans organisations and with other Government Departments to develop an integrated policy for veterans. This is well advanced, and will address veterans' concerns across government and identify means of improving the delivery of services to veterans, particularly the most vulnerable.
	Working through a veterans forum and a ministerial taskforce, we have agreed an action plan and commissioned nine working groups, made up jointly of representatives of the veterans community and of interested Departments, to identify ways of giving practical expression to the plan. We expect to see the first results of this work later this year.

Betty Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Several of my constituents were very grateful for the settlement for far east prisoners of war that was announced in November 2000. Does my hon. Friend recognise, however, that prisoners of war who suffered horribly in German camps and on forced marches have still not been recognised in this way? I believe that they have been unfairly treated.

Lewis Moonie: This is a matter to which we return time and again during parliamentary questions and in Adjournment debates. I recognise the level of suffering of former prisoners in German prisoner of war camps, but it did not, in general, match that experienced by the prisoners of war of the Japanese. This matter has been very carefully looked at in the past, and I believe that the prisoners of war to whom my hon. Friend refers have been treated sympathetically and appropriately.

Terrorism

Lawrie Quinn: What plans he has to adjust defence capabilities in respect of the coalition against international terrorism.

Geoff Hoon: The work being conducted in the Ministry of Defence on a new chapter to the strategic defence review is designed to ensure that we have the right concepts, forces and capabilities in place to deal with the threats that were manifest on 11 September. This work builds on the solid foundation of the strategic defence review, which left the United Kingdom well placed to meet the additional challenges that we now face. I expect to be in a position to announce some conclusions in the spring or early summer.

Lawrie Quinn: Notwithstanding the deliberations that his Department is undertaking, will the Secretary of State tell us whether, in the event of a new problem appearing on the horizon, the Department would have the facilities needed to implement the changes, representations and conclusions embodied in the work in progress, and to respond to any further terrorist threat?

Geoff Hoon: I can give that assurance. Obviously further policy work is under way, but it does not affect our practical ability to deal with a new terrorist threat should it manifest itself.

European Council (Barcelona)

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council in Barcelona on 15 and 16 March.
	Two years ago at Lisbon, the European Union set out to become the world's most competitive and dynamic economy by 2010. Since that time, the European Union has created 5 million new jobs. There are now nearly 3 million more women in work. Tax rates on low wage earners have been falling. We have agreed a new framework for competitive telecoms markets. Telecoms liberalisation has cut the price of calls across the European Union by almost a half. As a result of the EU action plan, internet access has doubled across the EU. We have cut red tape for small firms so that a private limited company can now be set up in under two weeks in 10 EU member states. We have recently agreed proposals to deliver a single EU securities market, and cheaper capital for small firms.
	However, the recent difficulties faced by the world economy mean that we cannot rely on cyclical growth to deliver the employment that Europe's citizens need. We must therefore push ahead with the structural reforms to Europe's economy.
	At Stockholm a year ago, progress stalled. Barcelona had to recover momentum. There is no doubt that after Barcelona we are indeed moving again, although there is still much ground to be made up by 2010. Such progress as there is represents a tribute to the European Commission and the leadership of the Spanish presidency, and I pay tribute to the excellent chairmanship of Prime Minister Aznar.
	We set a timetable under majority voting to complete the single market in financial services, itself capable of boosting Europe's national income by half a percentage point. No fewer than 25 different liberalising measures have already been agreed. Seven more key measures will be agreed by the end of the year. Most of all, we made a breakthrough in opening up the European energy market. All member states have now agreed fully to open up the non-domestic market by 2004 with free and fair competition. That represents over 60 per cent. of the total market in gas and electricity. In addition, it is clear that the overriding majority of EU countries are now ready to open up their domestic markets as well. We agreed a decision on the relevant directives to be taken by majority vote, at the latest by the end of 2002. That means that for the first time a single market in energy is now attainable.
	We agreed to deliver broadband technology across the European Union by 2005. That means internet access at 10 times the present speed. We agreed to boost our commitment to research and development towards a target of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product by 2010. The new research framework programme will spend 17.5 billion euro to that end. New industries such as the growing biotech market will benefit significantly. We agreed to implement by the end of 2002 proposals to reduce regulation on business, and a new system for consultation with business before regulation is introduced.
	Those steps go hand in hand with a social policy that seeks to encourage more and better jobs for all. The record of the British Government in this regard is strong. We have guaranteed fair rights at work. We have a national minimum wage. Our disability, gender and race equality legislation is among the most advanced in Europe. We have introduced a new system of tax credits to make work pay. Our new deal has put more than 300,000 young people into work. Since we came to power, unemployment in Britain has therefore fallen to its lowest level for 25 years. We have one of the highest employment rates in Europe overall, including for women and for older workers. [Hon. Members: "Barcelona?"] At Barcelona, Europe agreed that the enlargement agenda must focus on measures such as those, targeted at jobs, enterprise and moving people into work rather benefit, without heavy-handed regulation. It was, in other words, in agreement with the British approach—increasingly a European one. As the Barcelona conclusions say,
	"employment is the best guarantee against social exclusion".
	The enlargement countries came to Barcelona and for the first time participated in policy debates. We also discussed how to make our decision making more streamlined and efficient once we become a European Union of 25, 27 and more member states. I welcome the proposals of the Secretary General of the Council, Javier Solana, which will now be taken forward by the Spanish presidency. In many respects, those echo the ideas that Chancellor Schroder of Germany and I put forward in a recent paper on Council reform.
	The Council also addressed a range of pressing international issues. The European Union committed to increase its average development aid to 0.39 per cent. of GDP by 2006. That achievement owes a lot to the lead given by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the International Development Secretary. It is worth an extra $7 billion a year. If delivered it means another 80 million children in schooling for the first time in Africa and elsewhere.
	On the middle east, we underlined the extreme gravity of the present situation and called on both sides to take action to stop the bloodshed. We welcomed the resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council last week and the initiative taken by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia offering full normalisation of relations with Israel in return for full withdrawal from occupied territories. There must be an immediate ceasefire all round to give the peace process a chance to start to work again.
	On Zimbabwe, the European Council accepted our judgment that the elections were neither free nor fair. It agreed to take forward specific measures through the Foreign Ministers.
	On the Balkans, the Council warmly welcomed the agreement brokered by Javier Solana between the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro for a new relationship within a single state. That agreement underlines just how far the countries of south-east Europe have come in the past four years. A democratic Government is in place in Belgrade. Milosevic is on trial in The Hague. Kosovo has held successful elections for its provisional Government. Moderates are in power in Croatia and Bosnia. The noose is tightening around Karadzic. In Macedonia, active diplomacy last year stopped what would have become another Balkan war.
	Progress at Barcelona came about in large part through Britain acting in alliance with others. Prior to the summit, we took initiatives with no fewer than seven different countries. Five years ago, such alliances between Britain and those other countries would have been unthinkable.
	Under the last Conservative Government, Britain was marginalised, without influence appropriate to our weight and size, in the isolation room of Europe. Now, from the economy to defence to institutional reform, Britain is in there, shaping Europe's future, making Europe work in a way that is better for Britain and for Europe. The policy of constructive engagement is right. Britain's proper role is as a leader and partner in Europe. We will continue to get the best for Britain out of Europe. Under this Government, the days of weakness and isolation will not return.

Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the Barcelona economic summit and for giving me early sight of it.
	We on the Conservative Benches deplore and condemn, as he would, the violence that we yet again saw on the streets of the city while Ministers were discussing their various points. There were, however, some good points to come out of Barcelona, and I want to start with them. On overseas aid, we say unequivocally that we welcome the goal of increasing the average EU contribution to 0.39 per cent. by 2006, and we look forward to the Economic and Finance Council's report on debt relief for the least developed countries. However, I suspect that we will still need to see greater speed in the delivery.
	Out of the 30-odd pages of the presidency's conclusions, only about four short paragraphs can possibly give the Prime Minister cause for any significant claims to progress. Those are only aspirational anyway. For anyone reading it, 99 per cent. of the document is simply Euro-waffle. For example,
	"The euro clearly demonstrates what the European Union can achieve when the political will is there."
	What on earth does that mean? Does the introduction of the coins demonstrate "political will"? What of the euro's decline in value against the dollar and the pound?
	What about the serious crisis in pensions? In Europe that has been going on for years. Governments have been warned about it. The document states that
	"the European Council calls for the reform of the pensions systems to be accelerated to ensure that they are both financially sustainable and meet their social objectives"
	That is meaningless. There is a crisis, and that is the best that Ministers can do. Let us hope that what is proposed is more coherent than paragraph 32, which calls for—this is the ridiculous bit—"early retirement incentives" and in the next breath states that they want an
	"increase of about five years in the effective average age at which people stop working".
	Wonderful muddle and contradiction.
	At Lisbon two years ago, did not the Prime Minister describe that summit as a "sea change"? After Barcelona, it is difficult to find out from the Prime Minister's words whether he sees the tide as coming in or going out. In October last year, did he not refer to Barcelona as
	"make or break for Europeans' future prosperity"?
	Yet yesterday those two high-flying aspirations had been reduced to—I quote his own words—"limited but solid achievements".
	The Prime Minister said a moment ago that the EU was getting more like this Government in Britain. Well, there is another 10-year plan that they seem to have copied.
	Did not the Prime Minister fail to get any action to enforce the lifting of the illegal French ban on British beef, which is costing our farmers so dear? Some £200-million worth of exports would be a shot in the arm for the beleaguered agricultural sector. I seem to recall the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, criticising my predecessor for failing to get any movement on that, yet it is five years later and there is still no movement from the Prime Minister.
	Did the Prime Minister get firm action on asylum seekers, who are costing the rail freight companies £500,000 a week? There was nothing in that regard.
	Was not the Prime Minister pushed into accepting UK involvement in further military operations in Macedonia—both militarily risky and essentially a political gesture on our part—knowing full well that the Ministry of Defence has said that it is against it?
	Did the Prime Minister really sign up to the dishonourable concept of the EU effectively offering 30 million pieces of silver to bribe the Gibraltarians, to try and get them off our hands?
	What of Zimbabwe? No words on decisive action; just more delay and more talking. Once again, under the Prime Minister's leadership, the wrong message was sent to Mugabe.
	Would the Prime Minister tell the House how a strongly worded statement on the US steel tariffs sits with the refusal of the French to open up their energy markets? We have a French state-owned subsidised energy sector buying up British utilities while refusing to open up to free and fair competition. Where was the make or break there?
	In Lisbon the aim was "a fully liberalised and competitive telecoms market by the end of the next year." That was 2001. Two years later in Barcelona, we are told that "further progress is needed." A telephone call in Europe costs three times as much as in the United States. Where was the make or break there?
	Lisbon was about making Europe more competitive. Since then, Europe has gone backwards. Hourly labour costs in the EU have risen—risen—by 3.5 per cent. between 2000 and the autumn of 2001. The working time directive, the European works councils directive and so on have all reduced market flexibility. Where was the make or break there? The Prime Minister went to Barcelona to urge the need for less red tape on industry, yet in Britain alone more than 5,000 more regulations have been imposed on industry in the past year. Where is the make or break there?
	Was not the Prime Minister isolated in his support for America in dealing with the potentially lethal problems of countries possessing weapons of mass destruction—Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Where was the make or break there? Absolutely nothing. The Prime Minister claims to be at the centre of European decision making. After the last summit, he said:
	"Europe needs Britain to be engaged and Britain needs to have influence in Europe."—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 27.]
	Let us look at the facts. On asylum, he has lost the bilateral agreement with France that Germany and Denmark retain. On Zimbabwe, the Commission, the Belgians and the French have all rolled out the red carpet for Mugabe. Where was the Prime Minister's influence? Is that what he calls having influence in Europe? I doubt it. At Nice he gave up the veto in more than 30 areas. What influence did he gain in Barcelona from any one of those? None.
	Once again, Barcelona failed to address the future of the common agricultural and fisheries policies. Without this sweeping reform, all talk of economic reform founders at the first hurdle.
	The Prime Minister came back with so little from Barcelona that half his statement was taken up in talking about what Britain had been doing in the past three to four years—there was nothing about the EU. The truth is that Barcelona was, once again, all about fine words from the Prime Minister and no action. After claiming for five years to be at the centre of Europe, is it not an indictment of him that such an important summit can have achieved so little and at such great cost?

Tony Blair: That response was certainly as anticipated and expected. I should like to deal with some of the points that the right hon. Member raised. He said that we had to speed up our delivery on overseas aid. I might point out to him that it was this Government who increased overseas aid after years of the Conservative party refusing to increase overseas aid. As for his strictures on Europe not going further on pensions, the reason is that we do not want Europe to run all the pensions systems of various countries. I am not sure whether he is saying that he does want Europe to do that.
	The right hon. Gentleman made the extraordinary remark—extraordinary for reasons that I will explain—that nothing whatever had been achieved at the summit: no dates, no timetables. In fact, as I pointed out, 25 measures on financial services have been agreed and another seven were agreed at the summit, with dates attached. In respect of energy, the right hon. Gentleman said that nothing was agreed. In fact, it was agreed that 60 per cent. of the energy market—the non-domestic market—would be liberalised by 2004. The right hon. Gentleman accused us of giving away the veto on directives, but it is only because we have qualified majority voting on the directive to open up the domestic market that we agreed and were able to agree at Barcelona that by the end of this year there will be agreement on opening up that market too. As ever, with the greatest respect to the Conservative party, it has to be negative about everything to do with Europe.
	The right hon. Gentleman also made the extraordinary statement that we should not be in Macedonia—that we should have nothing to do with it. I cannot believe—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will have to be a little less excitable and listen for a moment. I know that he does not believe that we should be in Afghanistan. [Interruption.] I think that the right hon. Gentleman should calm himself for a moment. He does not believe that we should be in Afghanistan; he does not believe that we should be in Sierra Leone; and he certainly does not believe that we should be in Europe, after the statement we have just heard. Then he said that we should not be in Macedonia, when it is as a result of our action there that we have managed to prevent civil war.
	The right hon. Gentleman then said, in another extraordinary aside, that nothing was achieved in Barcelona and that it was a total failure and disaster. Why does he have to say that? Because, for the Conservative party, it is necessary always to be totally negative about Europe. There was one name that he did not mention in his response—one little thing that he did not get round to talking about: the position of Margaret Thatcher on Europe. The Conservative party has worked out its new policy on Europe, which is to be silent about it. Why does it want to be silent? Because it has moved further and further against Europe with every change that it has made. Just a few weeks ago, the shadow Foreign Secretary said again that he wanted to renegotiate the treaties.

Michael Ancram: Revisit.

Tony Blair: Oh, I see—that is the policy. That is clear, then. When the shadow Foreign Secretary revisits the treaties, what do we think that that visit will entail? Will he revisit it and say, "That was a good treaty; I liked that one."?
	The Conservatives' policy on the single currency is, "Never. Not in any set of circumstances." We did not get a single word of dissociation from the remarks of Margaret Thatcher. [Interruption.] Well, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with her remarks? A nod of the head would do.
	The Conservative right and the right hon. Gentleman say that nothing good comes out of Europe. How can anyone seriously argue for withdrawal from Europe? How can anyone seriously argue that nothing good has come from Europe in the past half century? What about rising prosperity and peace for our people? What about the queue of countries that want to join the European Union, with only the British Conservative party wanting to exit?
	The right hon. Gentleman's policy is to talk about withdrawal and end up ruling out a single currency for ever, whatever the economic circumstances. I say in response that his policy on Europe is not an act of patriotism: it is an act of folly.

Charles Kennedy: To coin a phrase, it is a joy, as ever, to hear another prime ministerial statement on a European summit. The only thing that was missing in the response that we have just heard was, "And another thing—I had that EU in the back of the cab once".
	Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, in the politics of this summit and increasingly in the politics of British involvement in the European Union, welcome and vital as that is—we obviously strongly support it—the fact that we do not have a clear timetable for a referendum on our participation in a successful single European currency is holding us back from making the diplomatic contribution that we could make in Europe?
	When that referendum campaign comes, we will want a broadly based coalition of interests, which will involve some Conservatives, the Government, the Liberal Democrats, the CBI and the TUC. To be seen cavorting with the likes of Berlusconi, given the response that that has elicited from John Monks, is not helping to build that long-term coalition for the referendum.
	We welcome the progress that was made on the liberalisation of energy policy, and we would have liked it to go further. None the less, it was a positive step and is to be welcomed.
	On Zimbabwe, when the three leaders are in the country tomorrow, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to stress to them the continuing British concern, which is certainly shared by his party and by ours, and the need for trenchant action following that rigged election?

Tony Blair: On the last point, our views have been expressed on many occasions and will be expressed again. What has happened is a tragedy for the people of Zimbabwe. It is important continually to emphasise that the main victims of violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe are not whites: they are black people—ordinary Zimbabweans—who wanted the right to elect a Government freely and fairly.
	With regard to the initiatives that we took prior to the summit, as I said in my statement, we took a range of initiatives with seven different countries. Without any apology or hesitation, I shall continue to work with all Governments inside the European Union when I believe that it is in the interests of this country.
	The tests, for the single currency must be passed. That is the basis for the referendum, and that is the position that we have taken for many years. I believe that it is right to judge the tests on the basis of the national economic interest, and if they are met, to put the case to the people in a referendum.

Gisela Stuart: I am sure that we all look forward to receiving postcards from the Leader of the Opposition when he revisits the various treaties of Europe. In the meantime, the Prime Minister referred to the progress that was made in Barcelona on constitutional and institutional reforms. Will he give us more details of how he sees the next steps, especially on reform of the workings of the Council of Ministers?

Tony Blair: The important thing about the proposals that we put forward with Germany before the summit was that we were saying that, when the European Council enlarges—and, frankly, even now—we should try to deal with a lot more of the detail of the business and the dossiers before we get to the Council, and that we need to make Council proceedings shorter and simpler. It is important to do that now, and it will be essential when we enlarge. The comments and proposals made by Javier Solana in that regard tie in well with that. Many people do not understand—although I know my hon. Friend does—the implications of the probable addition of 10 member countries to the European Union in 2004. That will significantly change the whole nature of the EU. These proposals for detailed change may seem anoraky, but they will be vital to the proper working of the Council.

Kenneth Clarke: First, I congratulate the Prime Minister on the modest advance that has been made towards energy market liberalisation in Europe. I also congratulate him on using arguments about labour market flexibility against his critics in the TUC that are identical to those that were used a few years ago by Ministers in the Major Government when the right hon. Gentleman was leading the Labour movement in opposition to that Government.
	Will the Prime Minister comment on progress towards a single market in financial services, from which this country could benefit considerably? It is all very well to have seven directives, but they are a modest advance towards the aims of the Lamfalussy agreement. Does he think that it will be possible to improve on the target of 2005 for an integrated capital market, and does he think that his new alliances with centre-right politicians in the European Union might enable him to improve on that?

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for those generous comments on the achievements of the summit. [Interruption.] I thought they were fine, actually; I liked them.
	In respect of energy, it is worth pointing out that before we got to the summit people thought that we would not be able make advances on any front. In fact, on non-domestic we have done so. The important point is that only one country is standing out against liberalisation, but because we will be able to decide the matter on a majority voting basis we should be able to get round that in time.
	On financial services, I agree with the right and learned hon. Gentleman that we have to do far more to make progress on the Lamfalussy proposals, and I think that we will be able to do so. I also hope—this is not directly in relation to financial services—that we can unblock the single European patent negotiations, which are essential for the future.
	As for the Governments with whom we work, we work with both centre-left and centre-right Governments when it is the country's interests to do so.

Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend may know that prior to the summit the European Commission estimated that the European Union's gross domestic product per head of the European Union stood at around only 65 per cent. of the equivalent figure for the United States. In view of that, and given that enlargement will further reduce the European figure, is not it reasonable to assume that Europe may never catch up with the United States and that the euro may never be able to look the dollar in the eye?

Tony Blair: I think that my right hon. Friend takes too pessimistic a view. If Europe makes the necessary structural reforms—the single currency makes those all the more important because of the lack of exchange rate flexibility—we will indeed be able to compete with the United States and we will have a huge opportunity to do so. When the European Union finally enlarges we will have a market of about 500 million, which is bigger than those of the US and Japan combined. If we look back over the past few years at the changes that have been made in Europe, it is clear that many parts of the continent are enjoying a prosperity that was previously unheard of.
	I am not minimising the challenges—that is why I described the progress at the summit as solid but limited. It is important that we continue the process. I repeat the view that I have taken throughout—that we are far more likely to get a Europe that is more shaped in Britain's image and in agreement with what we believe in if we are in there pursuing our interests in a constructive way.

Teddy Taylor: Is the commitment to fair and free elections in Zimbabwe wholly consistent with the widely reported comments in the Spanish press and in The Daily Telegraph that the Prime Minister and the Spanish Prime Minister discussed making an offer of £35 million to the people of Gibraltar if they voted yes, but offering them not a penny, and the undermining of their financial institutions, if they voted no? If that is in any way true, would not it be worse than Mugabe ballot rigging?

Tony Blair: Well, it is not.

Kate Hoey: Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), did my right hon. Friend speak to the Spanish Prime Minister during the private chit-chats that happen at Council meetings? If so, did he convey the feeling of the House and the country against any dilution of Gibraltarians' rights to be British? Did he also tell him that Gibraltarians, who are marching in their thousands today, will not be bought off?

Tony Blair: The Government's position and the constitutional guarantees remain, as we have said constantly. I stress to my hon. Friend and those on the Conservative Benches who want to disown the Brussels process, which the previous Government began, that it is manifestly in the interests of the people of Britain, Spain and Gibraltar to find a proper modus vivendi for the future. It is in everybody's interest, and the constitutional guarantees remain. Maintaining the stand-off that has occurred between people in Gibraltar and people in Spain when they live side by side cannot be in anyone's interests. The conspiracy theorists can have their theories, which abound, but what we are trying to achieve is in the interests not only of this country and our relationship with Spain but of the people of Gibraltar. That is why the Brussels process was started.

Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister was right to say that at least the summit was moving in the right direction. However, for those of us who are committed to Britain's playing a full role in the European Union, it was rather disappointing.
	Away from the public discussions, did the Prime Minister sense that the leaders of France and Germany were genuinely prepared to make progress and thus make a success of the single market, which Baroness Thatcher helped to create when she was at her peak as Prime Minister? Were they prepared to put in an effort to increase research and development by Governments and to deliver the broadband objectives for telecommunications by 2005?
	Will the Prime Minister confirm that, under qualified majority voting—another great achievement by Margaret Thatcher—the energy market will genuinely open up after 2004?
	Was there any discussion on the Galileo satellite network for global positioning, which seems vital if we are to make a full impact on world politics?

Tony Blair: On telecoms, I believe that we will achieve the goal. I also believe, as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that we can be confident about achieving the goal for energy because we are able to open up the domestic market through qualified majority voting.
	It is not for me to speak for the leaders of France or Germany, but I believe that the overwhelming desire of those who attended the summit was to push forward opening up the market. The Commission supports that position strongly, as do almost all the member states, whether centre right or centre left. I believe that there is an unstoppable momentum towards it. The pace of change will be governed by many matters, including political considerations. However, the atmosphere of the discussion of economic reform was qualitatively wholly different from four or five years ago.
	We have agreed in principle to take Galileo forward. We insist on its civil application and proper systems of sound financial management. If they are in place, we believe that it could play a big part in the technology and technological opportunities for Europe in future.

Debra Shipley: What does my right hon. Friend consider to be the environmental impact of the European energy market that he described?

Tony Blair: We have made it clear that at the same time as opening up the energy market, we must push forward on energy efficiency and fulfilling the Kyoto targets. We are well aware that opening up the market may benefit consumers on price but that it is important to take other measures on energy efficiency that are necessary for the environment. All the evidence that I read week after week suggests that climate change has become a more serious rather than a less serious issue. It is essential that the Governments of the world face up to its seriousness.

Angela Browning: To be generous to the Prime Minister, I believe that he misunderstood or misheard the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) in response to the statement. My right hon. Friend challenged what the Prime Minister signed up to on British military deployment in the Balkans because it was specifically against the advice of the Ministry of Defence. Why did he disregard that advice?

Tony Blair: Of course we do not disregard the advice that we receive. The point that I was making to the Leader of the Opposition—I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees that he requires translation nowadays—was that, if we are to play our proper role in the Balkans, it is important that we are part of the system of peacekeeping there. We learned from Bosnia, where we did not go in in the early 1990s when we probably should have done and where tens of thousands of people died, and in relation—[Interruption.] If the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me. In respect of any European role on defence, it has been made clear that it, too, must be consistent with the Berlin-plus arrangements for NATO. I say to the hon. Lady—as I keep trying to tell Opposition Members—that it must be right that Europe upgrades its defence capability so that, in circumstances where NATO does not want to be engaged, Europe has the ability to act. That, de facto, is what is happening in Macedonia. It is important that we take forward European defence and it would be a very, very great shame if we turned our back on it.

Ian Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that there is great concern both in this place and elsewhere that a British Prime Minister—a Labour Prime Minister—appears to have as his closest ally a Spanish Conservative and an Italian neo-fascist? Do not we spend our time trying to marginalise the right here, and is it not therefore contradictory to seek to ally ourselves with the right in Europe?

Tony Blair: We spend a lot of time trying to marginalise the right and on the basis of the last two elections I think we have been reasonably successful. The reason for that is that we have been prepared to do things that sometimes, traditionally, people would not have done.
	I am happy in the alliance that we had before the summit with Italy and with Spain. We also had one with Germany and with Sweden—both of which have centre-left Governments. It is important that when this country works with other Governments we are prepared to work across traditional lines. I see no problem whatever in that; in fact, it is one of this country's strengths. It is in part because we have been able to do that that we are making a difference in Europe, whereas previously we were entirely isolated. We should leave that type of ideological prejudice to the Conservative party and not adopt it ourselves.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Prime Minister recall, two years ago, after the Lisbon summit, promising to lift the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized businesses, since when there has been a steady stream of new EU measures adding to business costs? Specifically, does he remember the pledge on page 17 of the Lisbon conclusions promising to set up an action plan to deal with that regulatory problem by 2001? Why was that action plan never brought forward, as the Barcelona conclusions recognise? Would it not be simpler if the Prime Minister and his colleagues agreed to keep the promises that they made in the past rather than waffling on, as they did at the latest Council, about what they hope to do in the future.

Tony Blair: First, when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, I should have said that the numbers given by the Conservatives for new regulations on business are actually the numbers of statutory instruments. Vast numbers of those have nothing whatever to do with regulation on business; indeed, some of them are deregulating measures. In respect of the action plan on Europe, that is precisely why we brought forward the Mandelkern report—to ensure that there is less regulation on small businesses—

Iain Duncan Smith: What happened to it?

Tony Blair: I am just about to explain what happened to it.
	Secondly, we put in place a new mechanism for deciding regulation in Europe. The principles of that plan were agreed at Barcelona, so we did not fail to take it forward—we actually agreed to take it forward.

Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether there were any discussions about how to tackle the international terrorism supported by Iraq, Iran and Syria? When his European partners were discussing a solution to the middle eastern conflict did they agree that those who support the suicide bombers and the suicide gunmen who kill young people on the streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Natanya do not want a just solution to the conflict but the annihilation of Israel?

Tony Blair: The summit focused on economic reform as regards the foreign policy issues that we discussed, although of course the issue of the middle east was raised. I agree with my hon. Friend that the acts of terrorism that are taking place in Israel are absolutely appalling. In this country, we have experience of that type of terrorism—as have other countries in Europe—although on nothing like the scale seen in Israel. It is important, however, that the reaction of Israel and the Israeli Government is proportionate. That is why we welcome very much the moves that have been made by the Americans to send General Zinni back to the region. I think that Vice-President Cheney is there today. Without repeating all that I have said before, may I say that some people will condemn the Israelis and some people will condemn the Palestinian terrorists—we can all state our position on this—but the absolute essence of this is what action we are going to take to resolve the situation, because I understand the reaction.
	I spoke to Prime Minister Sharon when I was in Barcelona, and I understand how difficult it is for a Prime Minister in situations where he knows that terrorist attacks are about to happen. Does he sit back and do nothing; or does he take pre-emptive action? I understand the problems that Israel has. My only point the whole time is what is the strategy to get from where we are to where we need to be, and that strategy has to involve minimum confidence-building steps of security and then, as soon as possible, going back into a process. There are signs, first, that Israel recognises, as the UN Security Council did in an open way, that there will have to be a viable Palestinian state at the end of this negotiation and, secondly, in respect of Israel itself, that the whole of the Arab world—this is why I welcome the initiative that Crown Prince Abdullah wants to take—must respect Israel's right to exist.

Nicholas Soames: I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said in his statement about the middle east peace process—or so-called peace process—and the move towards it, but does he agree that, even allowing for the fact that Saddam Hussein and his regime have to be dealt with, it would be an act of culpable folly if any action against Iraq were to take place before there was a proper move towards a resolution towards peace between the Arabs and the Israelis?

Tony Blair: As I said when I was asked about that at the summit, I totally understand why there is a lot of speculation about action on Iraq, but, as I constantly repeat, no decision has been taken at all in respect of any action. There is a very clear view, which must be right, that Iraq should come back into compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and that it certainly posed a threat on weapons of mass destruction, but no decision-making process has taken place as yet. I think, though, that it is very clear that, for the sake of the whole of relations with the middle east—with Israel and the Arab world—we should all be doing what we can to get the peace process back on track there. That is pretty much a statement of the obvious, and there are many signs from the US Administration that they take their responsibilities seriously and are significantly upgrading their efforts to find a way through.

John McFall: May I gently chide the Prime Minister for being too hard on the Leader of the Opposition? After all, when that right hon. Gentleman was a humble Back Bencher in the early 1990s, he worked tirelessly with the then Labour Opposition and others to ensure the defeat of his own Government on European matters, so all is not bad. May I remind the Prime Minister of the pre-eminence of London and Edinburgh as financial centres, with more than 1 million jobs involved? Can Europe not learn from our example of having a single financial regulator? What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that the voice of business and finance is heeded when it comes to regulation and EU directives?

Tony Blair: I agree very much with my hon. Friend about London and Edinburgh being major financial service centres, and I hope and believe that the changes that we agreed at Barcelona will make a difference, although the devil will be in the detail and we must make sure that whatever intentions are expressed in the Barcelona summit are carried forward in the directives that come through on financial services.
	On the point about business and regulation, as I say, we agreed to commission a report by Mr. Mandelkern. That has now been agreed effectively, and that will make a difference to the way in which Europe views regulation. An indication of that was the agreement by Europe that industrial restructuring issues should be taken forward by the social partners—by the trade unions and business sitting down and talking together—rather than through regulation.

Simon Thomas: What became of the decision in the Gothenburg Council meeting that the following spring Council should be dedicated to sustainable development? How was the cause of sustainable development advanced in Barcelona? Although the extra £7 billion of international development aid is welcome, the target of 0.39 per cent. is barely half the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. Will the Prime Minister at least give an undertaking that his Government will beat the EU average?

Tony Blair: We have done a substantial amount on sustainable development aid and we led the way in securing that agreement at the EU summit. There are two ways to advance sustainable development: first, through our endorsement of the Kyoto process, our measures to improve energy efficiency and by having regard for environmental considerations in economic growth; and, secondly, through our decisions on aid and development. The hon. Gentleman might be right in one sense by saying that 0.39 per cent. is not ambitious when set against the UN 0.7 per cent. target, but it would be a huge advance if countries achieved the target of 0.39 per cent. because they are so far distant from 0.7 per cent. at the moment. We should not make the best the enemy of the good.

Mike O'Brien: Does my right hon. Friend understand the concern in North Warwickshire that while he was building stronger trade links with Europe in Barcelona, he was being undermined in this country by a former British Prime Minister who was in effect calling for us to leave the EU? Companies such as BMW, TNT and the IM Group are investing in the future in my constituency by creating jobs because they need that European trade link. The failure of the Leader of the Opposition to dissociate himself from the comments of a former leader of the Conservative party will raise questions in the minds—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is out of order and does not require an answer.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned manufacturers in the west midlands. Is the Prime Minister aware of the logjam in that region because manufacturers are unable to export to the EU through the channel tunnel? He will be aware that despite all the negotiations between the British Government and the French, there are still only 15 gendarmes and five security men guarding the Calais port. What steps have the Government taken while formulating the Barcelona treaty to ensure the permanent reopening of the channel tunnel for freight? May I remind the Prime Minister, when he says that Britain is in there shaping Europe's future, that the west midlands happens to be in Europe too?

Tony Blair: This is a serious issue and of course we raised it with France at the summit. It is important that, over the next few days and weeks, the French authorities take proper measures to ensure that the exit route is secure. There is no doubt that the responsibility primarily rests with them. That point has been made repeatedly and will be made again.

Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate a little more on the course of action likely to be taken by EU Foreign Ministers on the tragic situation in Zimbabwe? Given the condemnation of the election by the Commonwealth observers and statements by individual members of the Commonwealth refuting those observations, it might be necessary to recall the whole of the Commonwealth to repudiate what happened in Zimbabwe. That would be for the good of democracy in Africa, where other countries are also about to have elections.

Tony Blair: European Union Foreign Ministers will discuss what further sanctions should be taken in respect of Zimbabwe as a result of what happened there. On the Commonwealth, my hon. Friend probably knows that crucial meetings will take place in the next couple of days. The conclusion of the Commonwealth observers' report, of most independent observers and of the parliamentary delegation from the Southern African Development Community is clear. That is why I believe that there is no serious alternative but for the Commonwealth to act against Zimbabwe. The EU will deliberate, in the limited way that it can, on what further sanctions to take in a couple of weeks.

Edward Garnier: What precise arrangements did the Prime Minister reach with the Spanish, either bilaterally or within the context of the Barcelona summit, on the future of Gibraltar? Is he prepared to go to Gibraltar, prior to the conclusion of the Madrid-London talks on the principles, to explain to the people there what he and his Spanish counterpart have in mind?

Tony Blair: The process of discussion between Britain and Spain has not yet concluded. When it does, the proposals will be announced and people in Gibraltar will be able to see them. I appreciate what political advantage the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues may squeeze out of this issue, but they would be very unwise to try to derail a process that was begun under the previous Conservative Government for a very good reason. In a European Union that is moving closer together, when relations between Britain and Spain are not those between the Britain and Spain of 20 or 30 years ago and when people in Gibraltar desperately need a good relationship with Spain so that they can go about their daily lives, it is important that we try to come to a proper accommodation.
	The constitutional guarantees remain: in the end there will be no constitutional change unless people in Gibraltar agree to it. It would be very unfortunate—in fact, it would be misjudged and wrong—if the Conservative party attempted to inflame feelings in Gibraltar in a way that was irresponsible and wrong. In the end it is right for Britain, for Spain and for the people of Gibraltar that we find a sensible way forward.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend mentioned some of the complex alliances that develop in negotiations such as those in Barcelona. In view of the fact that many of the applicant countries were participating in the negotiations, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of our relationships with those countries, particularly those in central Europe where there seems to be real enthusiasm for joining the European Union and an unstoppable momentum towards that end?

Tony Blair: All those countries have made huge changes. In the past it would have been impossible to conceive of them entering the European Union in the numbers in which they will enter in 2004. Some of the initiatives that we took before the summit were with applicant countries, not least with the centre-left Government in Poland, and those countries look on Britain as a champion of enlargement. One of the most unfortunate things about the Conservative party's position is how far it seems to be moving away even from enlargement.

Jonathan Djanogly: Most people saw Barcelona as a chance to get to grips with deregulation and liberalisation. I appreciate the Prime Minister mentioning the start of the deregulation process and the reports that are part of that, but is he not aware that businesses in this country see this Government as a regulatory Government and that regulations are increasing rather than decreasing? That being the case, will he now commit himself to practising in this country what he preached in Barcelona, and cut regulations on our businesses?

Tony Blair: What business really welcomes is the economic stability that has delivered us the lowest interest rates and the lowest inflation for decades, the lowest unemployment that this country has had for 25 years and the highest employment of any major industrialised country. That is in addition to the measures taken, such as the reduction of corporation tax to boost business. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The procedures that we have agreed will allow us to take account of the views of business far better before regulation is made in Europe, and that is a significant step forward.

James Plaskitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to press on with enlargement in the EU, not only in the interests of the candidate members who were present in Barcelona but because enlargement will provide an added essential spur to structural reform?

Tony Blair: I entirely agree. The enlargement process is essential for the future of Europe and for its security. It is one reason why it is so important that this country carries on playing a leading and constructive role in Europe. When the EU enlarges to 25, 27 or 30 members, it would be absolute madness for this country to be on the sidelines of Europe. Our national interest is heavily engaged in Europe, and all our experience teaches us that when we are engaged and we are constructive, we achieve results.

Brian Cotter: Will the Prime Minister give the House more information on the consultation with small businesses which he talked about? Will he give us specific information on the implementation of the small business charter, with firm dates and tick boxes? Will he consider the paper produced by Small Business Europe, which I have in my hand? Bearing in mind that that organisation was set up by the Government and has only recently started to operate in Europe, the paper contains important recommendations for small businesses in particular, and we would welcome views on it.

Tony Blair: Small business co-operation in Europe is far better now, because of the changes that we have been making, as the hon. Gentleman implied. We have agreed a whole series of measures to take forward work with small businesses, but the important point that we have been trying to establish is that the right way forward on jobs, the labour market and enterprise is not for Europe to try to impose uniformity in all circumstances, but for us to agree certain objectives, benchmark that process, and then say that it is up to individual countries to take the measures necessary to get there. That is why a major issue in next month's Budget will be measures to stimulate small business and enterprise. Our belief is that in Europe, this is about getting the right process to judge the impact that regulation is having on small businesses, and the support for small businesses set out in the charter.

Afghanistan

Geoff Hoon: I would like to bring the House up to date by making a statement about the continuing role of the British armed forces in Afghanistan. It is just over five months since the global coalition, assembled in response to the terrorist attacks in the United States, began military action in Afghanistan. At that time we set out a number of specific short and longer-term campaign aims. Those included preventing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat, breaking the links between Afghanistan and international terrorism, and reintegrating Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community.
	Five months later, it is clear that that action has been remarkably successful. Afghanistan is now a very different country. The Taliban Government, who harboured the al-Qaeda terrorists, are no more. Terrorist training camps have been put out of action. The first steps towards creating a functioning state have been taken. Aid agencies operate with increasing freedom. Refugees are beginning to return to their homes.
	I am particularly proud of the vital part that British forces have played in this success. I have set out on a number of occasions the contribution that they have made to the international coalition—reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling flights, troops on the ground engaged in operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban elements, and Royal Navy participation in submarine and interdiction support operations in the Arabian sea.
	Britain's armed forces have also played a significant role in leading the international security assistance force in Kabul, with some 1,600 British troops currently deployed with the force. ISAF's full operating capability was achieved on time on 18 February, bringing together more than 4,600 troops from 18 different countries in a harsh and demanding environment at a considerable distance from home. I pay particular tribute to General John McColl for his role in this.
	ISAF is helping the Afghan Interim Administration to provide a secure and stable environment in Kabul. Life in the city is at last beginning to return to some kind of normality, as I was recently able to see for myself. ISAF is already training the first battalion of an Afghan national guard about 600 strong, with an ethnic make-up that reflects that of Afghanistan itself. It is also providing advice to the Afghan police. Where it can, ISAF has helped with much needed-physical reconstruction work—projects that range from repairs to schools to getting the city's dustcarts back on the road.
	British forces deployed with ISAF include troops from the second battalion of the Parachute Regiment. It was always planned that they would return to the United Kingdom at the end of March to prepare for their deployment to Northern Ireland later this year. They are now in the process of handing over their responsibilities to the first battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment.
	Germany has agreed to provide a new headquarters for the Kabul multinational brigade—ISAF's subordinate headquarters—which has until now been provided by the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade. A Bundeswehr brigadier will formally assume command tomorrow. That will enable us to withdraw a number of British troops from theatre, and is a demonstration of genuine international co-operation. So, too, is the Czech Republic's offer of a field hospital for ISAF. Following my discussions with my Czech counterpart earlier this month, the Czechs signed the ISAF memorandum of understanding last Thursday. Their contribution is very welcome.
	The House will also be interested in the handover of the United Kingdom's responsibilities as lead nation for ISAF. Our talks with Turkey, which has expressed an interest in taking on the role, continue. It would not be appropriate to say too much before the talks are concluded, but the atmosphere in the high-level discussions between the United Kingdom, the United States and the Turks in Ankara last week was extremely positive.
	We are therefore still working to transfer the leadership of ISAF. We are working hard to tie down the details, with the reassurance that Prime Minister Ecevit of Turkey has told my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he strongly supports his country taking on the role.
	However, for all the progress that we have made in Afghanistan, the threat of attack from al-Qaeda and Taliban-related groupings and individuals across the country remains very high. The recent Operation Anaconda in the Paktia province, led by the United States, tackled one group of al-Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fighters. That showed that those people are still in Afghanistan in large numbers and that they are heavily armed. Left alone, those groups would threaten all that the Afghan people and their supporters in the international community have achieved so far and would strive to retain Afghanistan as a base for training and organising terrorism. They do not recognise the Afghan Interim Administration and will work to destabilise the situation across Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and its supporters continue to pose a direct threat to states outside Afghanistan, including the United Kingdom.
	I know that the House will join me in offering its sympathies to the families of the Afghan and American soldiers who died during Operation Anaconda and in paying tribute to all the coalition forces that were involved, including the crews of the RAF Tristar tankers and Sentry AWACS aircraft that supported coalition air strikes during the operation.
	The United States has now formally requested that the UK provides forces to join in future military operations against other remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban elsewhere in Afghanistan. I have therefore authorised the deployment to Afghanistan of a full United Kingdom infantry battle group, built around 45 Commando, Royal Marines. That group will join a US-led brigade, forming a potent force ready to undertake such operations.
	We have held 45 Commando ready for offensive operations in Afghanistan for precisely that purpose. The lead elements of 45 Commando—its headquarters company and "Whisky" and "Zulu" companies—are already in theatre, embarked aboard HMS Ocean. Arrangements are now in hand to deploy those elements to Afghanistan, where they will be joined by the remaining companies of 45 Commando—held at high readiness in Arbroath—and also the combat support and services support elements integral to the Commando Group. Those include: 7 Battery of 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, equipped with 105 mm light guns, from Plymouth; 59 Independent Commando Squadron, Royal Engineers; and elements of the Commando Logistics Regiment. There is already a versatile range of helicopters aboard HMS Ocean to support 45 Commando Group. To increase the Commando Group's operational capabilities still further, we are also deploying a further three Chinook helicopters of 27 Squadron, RAF.
	That is a powerful force, in total up to 1,700 strong. We will ensure that it is ready to take part in operations as quickly as possible. The force will go initially to Bagram, with the first members of 45 Commando Group on the ground within days, and ready to commence offensive operations by mid-April.
	The deployment of 45 Commando Group is not a decision that has been taken lightly. It is our largest military deployment for combat operations since the Gulf conflict. It is important that the House is under no illusions about what this might involve. These troops are being deployed to Afghanistan to take part in war-fighting operations. We will be asking them to risk their lives. Their missions will be conducted in unforgiving and hostile terrain against a dangerous enemy. They may suffer casualties.
	No Government take such decisions without reaching the absolute conviction that it is something that must be done. The appalling events of 11 September demonstrated very clearly that these al-Qaeda and Taliban elements have the ability and the desire to launch attacks right into the heart of nations such as ours. Both the deployment of the Commando Group and our deployment to Kabul as part of ISAF contribute to our overall objectives of ending the threat posed by international terrorism and restoring Afghanistan. Both are entirely consistent with the campaign objectives that we set out last October. However, the troops with ISAF in Afghanistan have their own difficult and demanding job to do; 45 Commando Group will have theirs.
	By deploying 45 Commando Group we shall make a new and important contribution to defeating finally al-Qaeda and the Taliban. By our continued commitment to ISAF, we are helping Afghanistan regain her place as a stable and prosperous nation. I have no doubt that our armed forces will succeed in both tasks.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement, which I received earlier today. However, I am bound to say that I am a little surprised that we and the minority parties have had no advance discussions about this very significant announcement.
	Nobody should be under any illusions that this is the most significant statement by the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister since 11 September. The Secretary of State has announced the commitment of the largest force to combat operations since the Gulf war in 1991. Moreover, this deployment follows Operation Anaconda in and around Gardez where American and German troops have been killed on operations. This is not just a continuation of existing operations.
	Before asking about the deployment of 45 Commando Group, may I join the Secretary of State in congratulating our forces who are already in Afghanistan? In addition to other operations, 16 Air Assault headquarters and 2 Para have been doing an absolutely outstanding job. We are proud of them. We remain concerned about the future of our role in the international security and assistance force, so will the Secretary of State confirm that ISAF is proving a more protracted operation than he had initially hoped? Moreover, will he confirm that, as of two weeks ago, there were more than 2,000 troops committed to Operation Fingal in ISAF? When will we see substantial reductions in that number, so that we can go some way to reducing the over-commitment of British troops?
	On the question of Turkey's leadership, I can tell the House that Turkey's decision on whether to lead the force is imminent, but has yet to be made. I can only assume that the Secretary of State had hoped to be able to make that announcement today. What assurances has Turkey been seeking? Is it true that, like Her Majesty's official Opposition, it has been seeking clarification of the nature of the ISAF commitment, so that it is not left stranded with an open-ended commitment without clear objectives? Will the Secretary of State confirm that it would prefer ISAF to be a NATO operation and that it wants ISAF's mandate to be confined to Kabul, as he suggested it would be when he first announced ISAF? Is it also true that only the United States and the United Kingdom will shoulder the financial burden of finding the $100,000 that Turkey has requested to undertake the operation? Why should Britain and the United States be the only countries to carry this financial burden?
	The announcement about 45 Commando comes as a surprise. However, we unequivocally support the Government's decision to continue standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the war against terrorism. We recognise the dangers to which the Secretary of State has referred, but it is entirely appropriate that we should be prepared and proud to make this commitment. We supported the Government's initial deployment for fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and we continue to support continuing operations.
	I have some immediate questions. Under whose command will the operation be undertaken? Will the United Kingdom commander of ISAF have any role in the command of this brigade? We have warned in the past of complications and the possible confusion that might arise from the split chains of command that now exist in the Afghan theatre, with two UK deployments under separate commands undertaking diametrically opposite roles? Will the Secretary of State say anything to address that ongoing potential problem?
	There will be further and urgent questions, which I am sure the House will want to discuss. May I ask the Government, through the Secretary of State, to consider replacing Thursday's debate with a debate on the war on terrorism and the war in Afghanistan to give the House a proper opportunity to debate the serious issues raised by this very significant statement? In the meantime, on behalf of the Opposition, I wish our forces every success in the challenges ahead. They fight far away for our security at home; they risk their today for our tomorrow. We think of their families. God go with them.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support and, indeed, his good wishes to the armed forces involved and their families. I shall endeavour to deal in turn with the points that he made. First, the deployment of ISAF is governed by a United Nations resolution that is due to expire in June. As I told the House in defence questions earlier today, to be honest, I recognise that there is every prospect of the resolution being extended in June, but no specific decisions have been made, nor have any decisions been made about the involvement of British forces in any operation that might continue thereafter. However, all of us looking at the situation in Afghanistan must recognise that it is difficult and demanding and that ISAF is making a significant contribution to improving it; the likelihood of an extension of ISAF's mandate cannot possibly be ruled out.
	As for substantial reductions in our forces, the hon. Gentleman gave some figures that showed that there has already been a significant reduction. Initial elements have been withdrawn, having completed in particular the task of bringing up to standard the runway at the former international airport, which is now being used successfully and regularly.
	As for discussions with Turkey, it is not appropriate to go into detail now about the continuing negotiations with Turkey. I have told the House about the attitude of Turkey's leadership; I am sure that once many of the outstanding questions have been resolved, the commitment that Turkey has expressed in principle can be carried through.
	On the Royal Marine contingent, clear command and control arrangements are essential, as the hon. Gentleman said. As part of our deployment, Brigadier Lane, the commander of 3 Commando Brigade, and his headquarters will deploy to Bagram, joining the headquarters of United States Central Command—Centcom—which is already there, to work alongside their American counterparts in Afghanistan. It is obviously important that there should not be any confusion between the various forces deployed in Afghanistan, particularly those on offensive military action. Ultimately, of course, the responsibility for command lies with Centcom, as it has done throughout operations. However, its role will be clearly distinct from ISAF's; there will not be any confusion of roles, subject to the agreement already entered into, for the avoidance of difficulty.
	The hon. Gentleman requested a debate. The Opposition could doubtless pursue that through the usual channels, so I shall not make a specific response at this stage. However, there is a full Opposition day tomorrow, part of which is already devoted to a defence matter. If the hon. Gentleman thought it vital to have that debate tomorrow in time already available to the Opposition, I am sure that the Government would accede to his request.

John Smith: I am not in the least surprised that 45 Commando is to be deployed in Afghanistan. I have just returned from Central Command; enormous tribute was paid to British service men already serving on the front line in Afghanistan. Because of our traditions and conventions, we are unable to pay them proper tribute, yet in the United States, people can. Is my right hon. Friend looking at the role of our special forces and our ability—I appreciate the complications—to pay tribute to them for the fantastic work that they are doing?

Geoff Hoon: It is obviously important to pay proper tribute to the role of British forces, particularly in Afghanistan, but also in other theatres. It is equally important that we maintain operational confidentiality and do not in any way put at risk those forces carrying out tasks on the Government's behalf.

Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for sending me an advance copy of his statement, although I echo the concerns of the shadow Defence Secretary; a deployment of this kind merits prior discussion, at least among party leaders.
	May I pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces, who continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan? As always, they perform an incredibly difficult task with great courage and skill. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to General John McColl, who is doing an excellent job. The whole House will offer its support to the men of 45 Commando—and their families—in the endeavours that they are about to undertake.
	On ISAF, I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about Turkey. Does he agree that withdrawing any peacekeeping force before an indigenous law and order force can take over would deeply destabilise the people of Afghanistan, and throw away much of the good work already done? Does he therefore agree that the success of Operation Fingal is just as important as that of Operation Veritas? Given that ISAF is a UN-mandated force, does the UN plan to extend the duration of its mission or the mission boundaries? Indeed, is deployment of 45 Commando requisite on UN authorisation?
	Will the United Kingdom or the United States provide logistic support for 45 Commando's deployment, and what is the timetable for deployment? How long, in the Secretary of State's view, will the Royal Marines be there, and can he assure the House that their rules of engagement will be robust? I echo the concerns of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) about command and control. Will the operation be controlled directly from Centcom, in Tampa, or via Operation Veritas?
	Most importantly, although we Liberal Democrats offer our support, can the Secretary of State confirm that our forces are being deployed not just as a replacement for American forces? What assurance has he been given that the United States will remain committed on the ground, as well as in the air, until the terrorist threat from Afghanistan is ended? Does he agree that "shoulder to shoulder" surely means not only going in together, but coming out together?

Geoff Hoon: I began by writing down that the hon. Gentleman's initial observations were practical and realistic, in that he did not ask questions that cannot be answered properly in a fast-moving and difficult situation. Unfortunately, he then proceeded to ask a number of such questions, but I shall do my best to deal with each of them.
	On UN authorisation, the operation is being conducted in self-defence against those elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban that continue to threaten the United Kingdom and other countries. Logistic support will be provided through the numbers that I gave to the House. In such difficult and dangerous environments, it is important that the forces deployed be self-sustaining.
	I shall not give the hon. Gentleman a specific answer on timetabling; clearly, it will depend on what the forces find on their deployment on the ground, the resistance that they meet and the operations that they will have to conduct. Such deployments always demonstrate that there is a limit to how long we can keep people in the field—particularly a field such as that.
	I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman ended with that comment about the United States, which recently lost soldiers on the ground in conducting extremely dangerous and difficult operations. The United States will remain committed on the ground, and I am proud that British forces will work alongside their American counterparts in precisely such operations.

Chris Mullin: I welcome the progress made so far in Afghanistan, and the new deployment. It is vital that we remain committed in Afghanistan for as long as it takes, and we should not allow short-term domestic considerations—I know that my right hon. Friend will not—to pressure us into jeopardising what has been achieved so far. However, the lesson of the complications that we are encountering in Afghanistan surely is that we will not have resources available for any adventures in other parts of the middle east, such as Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: I think that I shall probably stick to talking about Afghanistan.
	My hon. Friend is right to talk about the need to be there as long as it takes. No one who has read accounts of Operation Anaconda could be anything other than concerned about the level of resistance, the numbers involved and the determination of fighters, many of whom were not native Afghans but foreigners who remained to prosecute continuing attacks—in this case, against the United States. It is likely that there are similar organised elements in other parts of Afghanistan and it is vital for the future of Afghanistan—and the safety of the rest of the world—that we take the fight to those elements and deal with them.

Peter Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall assuring me before Christmas that the British Government would certainly not be sending British troops in to Afghanistan on the ground for any permanent combat operation, but would send them in only for special operations from which they would come out quickly? Does he recall what happened to the Russian army when it went into Afghanistan? Why should he suppose that our experience would be any different?

Geoff Hoon: The Royal Marines are ideally suited to precisely the kind of operation that I and the hon. Gentleman describe to the House, which involves moving fast, deploying quickly and dealing with the type of threat that I have described to the House.

Alice Mahon: I am sure that the Secretary of State will confirm that this is mission creep on a massive scale. Will he tell us how many extra troops are being committed from the other 18 countries in the coalition? Will he confirm that parts of Afghanistan are now being carved up by some of the old warlords and that people are moving out of those areas? Can he give us an assurance that our troops will not be deployed in those areas, where they might get caught up fighting the Northern Alliance?

Geoff Hoon: The purpose of the operation is as I have set out. It is to deal with the remaining elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who pose a continuing threat and it will involve other countries. I do not have the precise details to hand because that is a matter for those countries and, ultimately, for the United States. There are already other countries involved—countries other than the US were involved in Operation Anaconda—and I do not accept that there is any risk of British soldiers becoming involved in any fighting against the Northern Alliance, because this is a specific mission designed to deal with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Secretary of State accept that I welcome the deployment, not least because I am in no doubt—given its size and composition—that it would not be going unless it were absolutely necessary. I share the views of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence in wishing them well.
	Will the Secretary of State pay tribute, in the way that only he can, to the astonishing skill at arms of British forces in Afghanistan in the past few weeks? They have behaved remarkably and we owe them an enormous debt. I mean not only the special forces, but the soldiers doing the run-of-the-mill work around Kabul and elsewhere, which has been very hazardous. Will he also say a word about the importance of the ongoing commitment to getting aid into those areas of Afghanistan that find themselves in a difficult state? Will he assure us that there will continue to be that commitment to Afghanistan that was so lacking last time?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who makes his points effectively and with his customary clarity. I have had the privilege of seeing the full range of commitments that Britain's armed forces have engaged in and he is right that they have displayed remarkable skill in what they do. He is also right that that applies across the board, because it is not only those at the sharp end—although I pay tribute to them as well. Deploying forces at this distance for this length of time—and sustaining them in a difficult and dangerous environment—is a considerable achievement by our logistics people, who have done a remarkable job.
	I shall not go into too much detail on the question of aid at this stage, save to say that I am assured that aid is continuing to flow and that the flow of aid is improving day by day. That is a recognition of the much improved security environment across Afghanistan and not simply in Kabul.

Nigel Beard: What is the latest assessment of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden?

Geoff Hoon: The latest assessment is that we still do not know. Determined efforts continue to bring him to account, together with other prominent figures from al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Tony Baldry: The ISAF operation is mandated by the United Nations, but is there not a broader point here? Is not the UN Secretary-General entitled to seek wider support among the community of nations for his mandates? Of course everyone fully supports what the United Kingdom is doing, but does the Secretary of State think not that we are doing too much, but that other countries are not fully pulling their weight? That issue involves not only Afghanistan, because there are, I am afraid, other failing states around the world. Unless other nations prepare to support the Secretary-General, the prospects for civilisation are bleak.

Geoff Hoon: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). The difficulty is not lack of commitment or support from other nations. Indeed, unusually for an international operation, I have had to turn down contributions to the ISAF. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) will recall from his days in government that that is unusual. Normally, the Defence Secretary spends a good deal of time on the telephone trying to persuade other countries to participate in international operations, but the reverse is true on this occasion.
	The reason for that is that we required particular, specialist skills. Those necessary for the early deployment of the ISAF involved engineering—rebuilding runways and ensuring that the basic infrastructure could accommodate a force of such a size. The operations that I set out in my statement involve determined war-fighting skills and the ability to deploy rapidly in extraordinarily difficult and dangerous surroundings. Again, there are simply not that many armed forces in the world that can complete those tasks at such notice.

Mike O'Brien: I congratulate our armed forces on their operations to date and acknowledge that the announcement is indeed significant. Of course, 45 Commando will go, and ought to know that it goes, with the full support of the House. Can my right hon. Friend reassure us that he has received assurances that 45 Commando will have available to it full air and logistic support where necessary from US forces in any combat operations that it may undertake?

Geoff Hoon: This will be an integrated force working alongside its US counterparts and receiving US back-up in precisely the way that my hon. Friend describes.

John Wilkinson: In pursuing his forward strategy in Afghanistan—a debate on which would be highly desirable at the earliest possible date, preferably tomorrow—will the Secretary of State ensure that he balances it with vigorous efforts to maintain the closest liaison with and support for the Government of Pakistan, without whose stability no progress towards pacifying the region and eradicating terrorism could be achieved? That is particularly so in view of the horrendous atrocity at an Islamabad church yesterday.

Geoff Hoon: I recently visited Pakistan and had a meeting with the President and other senior Government figures. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is vital that we take forward those operations in consultation with the Government of Pakistan, as well as with other countries that neighbour Afghanistan. Their role not only in operations in general, but specifically as part of the political process of rebuilding Afghanistan is vital.

Hywel Williams: Clearly, the thoughts of Members in all parts of the House are with the forces in their perilous task. Have the Government considered seeking a precise UN mandate for the continuing campaign in Afghanistan?

Geoff Hoon: There is a precise mandate for the ISAF operation. The follow-on operations that I announced this afternoon are covered by the UN charter as justified in self-defence.

John MacDougall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that fears over loss of life among the troops in Afghanistan, which we all share, will increase if we do not move with the speed and stealth referred to in the statement? Indeed, if we are serious about tackling terrorism, we must use the tactics that have been applied in this instance.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend makes a number of very good points with which I entirely agree. It is vital in this kind of operation that security is not compromised in any way.

John Maples: Are the 1,700 troops that we are deploying precisely what the United States requested, or did it ask for more? Secondly, will the Secretary of State tell us which other countries are providing combat troops, as part not of ISAF but of this operation? Presumably, this force was put together in consultation with Centcom and other national headquarters, so he must be able to tell us what other countries will provide combat troops to fight alongside ours.

Geoff Hoon: I can certainly give the House an idea of which other countries are likely to be involved, but I anticipate that those countries will have to make the same kind of announcements to their Parliaments as the one that I am making this afternoon, and it would be wrong at this stage to give the House a definitive list. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be able to do that in due course, however.
	So far as American requests are concerned, I am absolutely confident that we are providing to the Americans precisely what they have been looking for to work alongside their own forces dealing with the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Jenny Tonge: I am delighted that the ISAF troops have managed to help the humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, but will the Secretary of State tell us how many Afghans have been killed during the operation, either by military action or by starvation? Does he not agree that the United States should finish its job in Afghanistan before it embarks on another war with Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot tell the hon. Lady precisely how many Afghans have been killed during these operations. That figure is simply not available to anyone. I anticipate, however, that it is much lower than much of the hysterical comment has suggested from time to time. As a result of an astonishingly well targeted bombing campaign, I expect the number of civilian casualties to be very low. I will not deal with the other subject.

Mark Francois: May I ask the Secretary of State several brief questions? First, will he confirm whether there is any plan for a call-up of elements of the Royal Marine reserves to bolster 45 Commando group's proposed operation? Secondly, will he give the House some idea of what medical facilities will accompany the group on operations? Will they be provided by the UK, the United States or, perhaps, a combination of the two nations? Thirdly, I support this initiative, but I would like the Secretary of State to give us some idea of the effect on the tour plot back home of the decision to deploy yet another regular battalion on operations abroad.

Geoff Hoon: No decisions have been taken yet about calling up reserves as a result of this operation. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's third question next. It is unlikely that the operation will have a significant impact on tour plots, for precisely the reason set out in my statement earlier, which is that elements of the Royal Marines are already deployed and have been on HMS Ocean for some time. The remaining elements that we intend to deploy are being held at very high readiness for precisely this kind of operation.
	There are now some excellent medical facilities in and around Kabul. I mentioned the contribution that the Czech Government were prepared to make, and we are discussing with them the best way of deploying a state-of-the-art field hospital that they have available. That is why I was so pleased with the contribution that they were able to make. It is this kind of specialist contribution that allows this kind of international operation to be so effective in difficult circumstances.

Patrick Mercer: Last year the Select Committee on Defence—of which I am a member—was lucky and privileged enough to visit the men of 45 Commando Royal Marines on Operation Saif Sareea. They struck me as the finest body of men that we are ever likely to deploy overseas. However, the additional troops that are going to Afghanistan, and that we may or may not be deploying to the Balkans, and the lack of any apparent reduction in the forces in Northern Ireland, will all make the pips—which are already hard-pressed—begin to squeak even more. May I seek from the Secretary of State—whose presence here I applaud after his illness at the weekend—an assurance that new and imaginative ideas will be used to reduce commitments and deployments elsewhere?

Geoff Hoon: As I have told the House on many occasions, I am responsible for ensuring that our commitments are balanced and can be maintained within the capabilities we have available. That continues to be my responsibility.

Hugh Robertson: In his statement, the Secretary of State rightly drew our attention to the continuing threat from al-Qaeda. Some of those fighters will no doubt stand and fight, as in Operation Anaconda; others may well contemplate guerrilla action, which we have seen many times in Afghanistan over the years. Can the Secretary of State tell us what plans we have to meet that threat, and in particular how we will seal the border to ensure that people cannot come and go as they wish?

Geoff Hoon: The one thing I have become in recent months is something of an expert on maps and the topography of Afghanistan, and I will not pretend that sealing the border is in any way realistic. That applies not least to the border along Pakistan. A number of Afghanistan's external borders consist of extraordinary terrain, and frankly there are not the troops to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	Let me say, however, in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question, that the operations in prospect, consistent with Operation Anaconda, deal with precisely the kind of guerrilla threat about which he is rightly concerned. It is important that we get to those elements before they are in a position to conduct a guerrilla campaign. That is why Operation Anaconda was necessary, and why the follow-up operations I have described are also necessary.

David Laws: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that 45 Commando and other forces would be used against the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Can he tell us how large those remnants are, in his judgment and that of the intelligence we have?
	So far, in their military operations abroad, the Government have been careful to set precise time scales and targets for the deployment of our forces. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to the question of when our mission—the mission of 45 Commando—can be said to have been completed?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman's questions are perfectly proper and perfectly fair, but I will not go into the detail of the numbers with which we expect to have to deal. I said earlier that the resistance to Operation Anaconda had been significantly greater than might have been originally anticipated, and had led to some serious fighting. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that if he studies the nature of the deployment we propose, he will see that we are delivering a particularly potent force to Afghanistan. That is not coincidental; it will sit alongside similar deployments from the United States and a number of other countries. It is designed to deal with the elements concerned, and to deal with them extremely effectively.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for the full answers that he has given. He has described a fast-moving situation. Other partners may be involved in the operation taken on by 45 Commando; meanwhile, the question of ISAF's leadership remains unresolved. May I reiterate the need for a full debate which should, I stress, be in Government time? [Interruption.] I do not think it appropriate to make light of that request. The Secretary of State has made a very serious announcement, and the House is entitled to debate it. I merely ask the Secretary of State to take the request to the usual channels, and to use his influence. I know that he has some.

Geoff Hoon: I am certainly conscious of the importance of the subject. That is why I took the first possible opportunity to make a statement in the House. If the hon. Gentleman is determined to engage in a debate, I am ready and available tomorrow.

Points of Order

Claire Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What instruction or advice was issued from the Speaker's office today to ensure that Members of Parliament could gain access to the House? They are entitled to that access, and to protection. I ask because for approximately 45 minutes today demonstrations outside the House blocked the road, and Members experienced real difficulty in gaining access in order to do the work that we are here to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that both pro and anti-hunting demonstrators assembled in the area of Parliament square, totalling some 500 people, from midday today. The first priority for the police was to keep the two elements apart, and initially that was achieved successfully. Shortly after 2 pm, demonstrators blocked the traffic at the junction of Bridge street and Parliament street. Subsequently, police forcibly moved the demonstrators from the roads, and by 3 pm access to Carriage Gates and Parliament street was restored. Mr. Speaker has asked the Serjeant-at-Arms to investigate the full circumstances of the disruption.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that in dealing with these matters all the authorities concerned will bear in mind the sessional orders that require free access of right hon. and hon. Members to this building.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is precisely why Mr. Speaker has asked for an investigation. There is nothing I can add to what I have already said.

Lindsay Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had any request from Foreign Office Ministers to make a statement on the demonstration in Gibraltar by the majority of people who live there, 20,000 plus, to stand up for their right to self-determination?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no information that any such statement is about to be made.

Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to your statement about the demonstration, I was watching the demonstration, and there did not seem to be any force used by the police in dispersing demonstrators. An agreement seemed to be reached whereby they parted and let the traffic through.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that there is anything I can usefully add to what I have already said.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Business of the House

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Minister to move motion No. 1, the business motion, it might help if I say how Mr. Speaker proposes to proceed, assuming that the motion is agreed.
	Mr. Speaker proposes that motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on hunting with dogs be debated together. He has not selected any of the amendments to the motions, so at the end of the debate—presumably at 10 o'clock—he will put the questions on motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 one after the other.

Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I tabled an amendment that attracted cross-party support. More than 80 Members, including many luminaries—former Cabinet Ministers and current Ministers—support it, yet to my surprise it has not been selected for debate. Can you give me any advice so that, should this arise again, I shall have a better chance of getting my amendment selected for debate—perhaps by seeking more signatures, more prominent Members of Parliament or whatever?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. All I can say is that all proposed amendments were given the most careful consideration. The reasons for selecting or not selecting amendments are never given, for very good reasons.

Alun Michael: I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put successively the Question on each of the Motions in the name of Mr. Alun Michael relating to Hunting with Dogs not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Question on any Amendment which has been selected and may then be moved, and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of time for opposed business.
	The motion provides that, following the debate, there will be a series of votes on three options for dealing with hunting. The alternatives are, first, "supervision", which is nearest to the status quo; secondly, "hunting under licence" or regulation, known as the middle way; and, thirdly, what has been described as a ban or prohibition of hunting.
	In each case reference is made to "Bill 2", which is the Hunting Bill from the previous Session in the form in which it was introduced in December 2000. I understand that copies are available in the Vote Office.
	All three campaigning organisations have told me that they accept this as a fair way of allowing the range of opinions across the House to be clearly expressed. Not later than 10 o'clock, the Chair will successively put each of the motions for voting, enabling hon. Members to vote for or against each of the options. The normal procedure would have the potential to constrain the House by preventing further votes once one motion had been carried.
	I hope that the House will agree that this arrangement will allow us to cover the range of opinions, while still clearly expressing hon. Members' views through the votes at the end of the debate. 5.14 pm

Ann Winterton: When I was first taken hunting as a child by my mother, I never expected that one day I would be standing at the Dispatch Box to defend the right of the individual to take part in one of the greatest of our traditions. Hunting and ponies definitely played a part in my eventually standing for Parliament, because it was while I was a member of South Staffordshire pony club that I met my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady gets too far into her remarks, may I say to her that we are discussing a very narrow motion on how we shall proceed this evening? This is not the time for a broader debate.

Ann Winterton: I am so sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I misunderstood. I am happy with what the Minister said when he moved the business motion.

Norman Baker: My colleagues and I are happy with the business motion, which is very narrow. That is probably the only point of agreement that there will be in the Chamber this afternoon.
	Question put and agreed to.

Hunting With Dogs

Alun Michael: I beg to move,
	That this House considers that arrangements for the supervision of the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be given statutory effect by provision similar to Schedule 1 to the Hunting Bill as introduced into the Commons last session [Bill 2].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss motion No. 3—hunting with dogs: supervision—and motion No. 4—hunting with dogs: hunting under licence. [Interruption.]

Alun Michael: I heard some advice to quit while I am ahead, but I am a greater optimist than that.
	Today's debate fulfils our manifesto commitment that the House would be given an early opportunity to vote on the future of hunting with dogs. It also fulfils the announcement made in the Queen's Speech after the election. It is an important step towards fulfilling the second part of our manifesto promise, which was to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue.
	The issue of hunting is firmly on the House's agenda. It is extremely contentious and it needs to be resolved. There is no right time to try to resolve it, but it is an important issue for many who want to see an end to cruelty and for those who want things to remain as they are.
	There have been numerous legislative attempts to deal with hunting through private Members' Bills, but last year the Government introduced a Hunting Bill. It was an honest attempt to enable each of three groups to set out their preferred option, with the Government remaining neutral. It was the subject of a free vote on both sides of the House.
	It was hoped that that process would lead to opinion across the piece coming together behind one option, but that did not happen. Rather than coming together, views had polarised between the Houses by the time the Bill was considered in the Lords.
	I remind the House of the Burns report on hunting, which the Government commissioned in 2000. The report set out the facts about hunting and the consequences of a ban. Hon. Members who have been involved in the hunting debate, whatever their views on hunting, have been united in their admiration of the fairness of the report produced by Lord Burns, and I am sure that it will again inform debate today.
	As promised, we now return to the hunting debate. A vote on the alternative motions provides a straightforward method of taking the views of both Houses in a clear and unambiguous manner, without taking too much time out of the busy programme faced by both Houses. Again, it is as simple as that.
	The options contained in the Hunting Bill of 2000 form the basis of the options in the motions that we are considering today. They are, first, supervision, which is nearest to the status quo; secondly, hunting under licence, or regulation, known as the middle way; and a third option, which has been described as a ban or prohibition of hunting.
	I have held discussions with all the interest groups, all of which have considered refinements to the detail of their option as originally drafted, in the period since the Bill was introduced in the House. Things have moved on—in particular, the Deadline 2000 option was amended during its consideration by the Standing Committee and on Report. Referring to the three options as set out when the last Bill was introduced is the simplest way of defining the choices on which right hon. and hon. Members are being asked to vote. All interest groups are represented in the House, and anyone speaking in the debate can explain the nuances of the latest thinking on their preferred option.
	I remind the House that the Government have remained neutral on the question. No Whip has been imposed on Labour Members for the votes that will be called at the end of today's debate. I understand that that is also the position taken by the official Opposition and other parties. It has essentially been a parliamentary issue rather than a governmental issue, and we respect that fact.
	The way in which I have voted on hunting is on the record. I have always voted for a ban on hunting, but that does not interfere with my responsibility for managing the process and encouraging debate from all sides. I promise that all points made in the debate in both Houses will be listened to and considered. Once the votes have been held in this House, and in the other place tomorrow, I intend to make a statement on the way forward before the Easter recess.

Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend able to be precise about when that statement will be made?

Alun Michael: No. I have seen suggestions that it is likely to be towards the end of this week, but that is a matter for the business managers and they have not confirmed the time to me. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a fairly narrow window of opportunity between now and next Monday, let us say, and it will be within that time frame.

James Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for the balanced and sensible nature of his introduction so far and look forward to the balanced and sensible nature of the statement that will be made later this week. However, given that he has committed himself to an outright ban on fox hunting, does he agree that it is impossible for him to be dispassionate in his consideration of what is said?

Alun Michael: Were that the case, it would be most disappointing because it would have to apply to everyone taking part in the debate. It would mean that nobody who had voted one way in the past could possibly be open to serious points made by people with other views. That is not the position as far as I am concerned. Tonight's vote will allow Members on both sides to indicate the strength of view on each of the three broad options. My responsibility, in addition to being able to exercise my vote freely, like everyone else, is to enable the House to reach a conclusion on the issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do that as logically and dispassionately as I can.

Alan Beith: I respect the integrity of what the Minister says, but he also brings another aspect to the debate. He is a Minister in the Department responsible for rural affairs, which represents a change from the way in which the matter has been handled in previous Sessions. Can we take it that he will assess the impact on rural communities and the rural economy of any decision or compromise that is reached and that he will be briefed by his Department following analysis of those matters?

Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman can certainly take it that I will consider all aspects of this matter before carrying out the responsibilities that are mine at present.
	In the past, this matter has been left to Back Benchers, through the drafting of private Members' Bills, and three groups were allowed to draft on the last occasion. The Government took office with a manifesto commitment made at the last election to enable Parliament to come to a conclusion on the issue. That is the responsibility that I have as a Minister, which is what has changed. The matter is not being left to Back-Bench initiatives; I have a job to help the House and Parliament as a whole to reach a conclusion on the issue.

John McFall: My right hon. Friend will remember the private Member's Bill that I was responsible for in 1994, which received the massive endorsement of the House—yet, like other such Bills, it was defeated. The will of this House to ban hunting has been shown time and again. Therefore, if there is any jiggery-pokery at a future date, will the Minister consider invoking the Parliament Act?

Alun Michael: I take it that my hon. Friend is suggesting that there might be obstruction in another place. I hope that in their debate tomorrow, Members of the House of Lords will make a constructive contribution and that we will be able to move forward. My hon. Friend knows that I am an optimist. I encourage Members speaking and voting in another place to approach the matter in the same constructive way that I expect of Members of this House.

Simon Thomas: I am pleased to hear that more of a Government line is being taken and that the issue will be resolved one way or another. The Government have been reluctant to use the Parliament Act. Will the Minister consider using a Joint Committee of both Houses to come up with a Bill that Parliament as a whole can agree so that this issue is settled by the will of Parliament?

Alun Michael: I hear what the hon Gentleman says. He is effectively starting to make a contribution to the debate. He can, I am sure, make his point if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have undertaken to consider all the points made in the debate.

David Winnick: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), is not it obvious that there is no way in which the other place will agree to a total ban, no matter what majority there is tonight for that option, as we expect? The question of whether the Government will have the courage to use the Parliament Act is crucial. I hope that there will be an overwhelming vote for a total ban, but, no matter how we vote tonight, it will be a waste of time unless the Government understand the need to act decisively.

Alun Michael: I certainly do not rule out that approach. I hope that my hon. Friend's comments will be borne in mind when Members of the other place debate and vote on the issue. I have already said that I intend to carry on being an optimist, and to encourage intelligent debate from all sides of the argument.

Mike O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will listen carefully to the debate in this House, and that if there is a vote for a ban he will make clear in his statement in a few days' time the Government's position on the use of the Parliament Act to bring this matter to a conclusion, as the Government have promised they will do for some time?

Alun Michael: I understand precisely my hon. Friend's point, and the importance placed on it by the many Members who signed amendment (b) to the motion for a ban, although it is not being considered. I shall take that point on board, and I shall respond to it when I make a statement in the next few days.

Ronnie Campbell: I remind the Minister and the Government that this House was elected by the British people, whereas Members of the other place were put there by privilege.

Alun Michael: That point can be made in a variety of ways, gently or bluntly. My hon. Friend does it in his own inimitable manner.

Malcolm Savidge: My right hon. Friend has been most generous in giving way. He will have noticed that Members from all parts in the other place, when discussing its future reform, repeatedly said that even in a reformed state it should be subservient to this House. That should also have an important influence on how we judge the decisions made here against those made there.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes an important constitutional point. I want to encourage rather than threaten Members of the other place, as I encourage Members of this House, to approach this debate constructively and positively. I know that there is a temptation to say that we have debated this issue before, so why are we debating it again? We are debating the three motions, and they will be debated tomorrow in the other place. On the back of those two debates and the votes cast, I shall make a statement to the House. It would not be fair to go beyond that. I am hoping for a constructive debate, with more light than heat in both Houses.

Barry Sheerman: As my right hon. Friend will know, a decision on this subject has already been made in Scotland. What advice would he give to Members representing Scottish constituencies on using their vote tonight?

Alun Michael: On a free vote, all Members can decide how to cast their votes. It is for hon. Members to decide how to vote.

Judy Mallaber: Has my right hon. Friend received any indication that Members of this House who have previously voted for a total ban and who I expect to do so again tonight would be influenced to change their mind if the other place voted tomorrow for the middle way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I say that he has been very generous in taking interventions, but they do not directly relate to the subject matter before the House? An enormous number of Members want to catch my eye, and unless we get going, more and more of them will be disappointed.

Alun Michael: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) that I have received no such indications. I have seen in the press many reports of deals being done and negotiations going on, but that speculation is inspired by nothing. I have listened to a variety of views. That is a sensible approach for any Minister with responsibility for an issue to take. I shall now listen to the debates in this House and in the other place.
	The purpose of the motions is to give all right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to consider the matter and to vote. Hunting is an emotive issue. It remains to be seen what debate we will have here and in another place, but in the past both Houses have risen to the occasion when there has been a debate on a free vote. I shall listen with interest to what is said in the hope that it will illuminate the way forward. I have always been an optimist, and I hope that contributions will generate light, not just heat, and inform the debate.

Ann Winterton: Earlier this afternoon I was rather too keen to get on with the debate in order to share my own experience with the House. I have never spoken in a debate on hunting before, and I thought it important to set out my stall.
	It was when I was a 17-year-old at grammar school, which will be another red rag to the bulls opposite, that I was first invited to become joint master of the South Staffordshire hunt, and I served for five seasons as field master. During that time I learned many of the skills that are needed for politics, not least the ability to lead from the front and to develop a thick skin to withstand the slings and arrows that are sometimes aimed at us. At the time, I was the youngest master of foxhounds in the country, but I am not sure whether that record still stands. I continued to hunt with my family, on and off, until the early 1980s, and now occasionally go out with the Forest and District beagles in Cheshire. I especially enjoy being up in the hills, where life is pretty hard but the people are the most genuine.
	In all that time I have never considered hunting cruel—if I had, I would not have taken part. It always seemed to me to be the greatest privilege of all to be able to follow hounds and to watch them work in the company of others who respected and loved the traditions of the countryside as much as I did. When I was a joint master I worked to a voluntary code drawn up by the Masters of Foxhounds Association; I therefore know from personal experience that the system of self-regulation works. That arrangement has more recently been superseded by the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting, which operates at no cost to the taxpayer but ensures that all recognised hunting with dogs is accountable. I support that organisation wholeheartedly and believe that the best way forward is to back it and self-regulation.
	The breathtaking arrogance and insensitivity of this Government have to be seen to be believed. At a time when the countryside is still reeling from the shock of a devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and on top of the deepest farming recession since the 1930s, the Government seek to kick the countryside in the teeth once again by introducing this debate on hunting. In the current climate of rural crisis, it is an unacceptable distraction from the real issues that face the countryside, let alone the nation.

Colin Challen: Given how well the hon. Lady knows the countryside people she has mixed with through hunting, will she denounce those in the hunting lobby who have said that if the House passes a law outlawing their activity, they will break the law?

Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman refers to the people whom I have met through hunting. In fact, I come from a farming background and have lived in the countryside all my life, so not all the people I know hunt, although most of them support field and country sports. Like him, I do not believe that any group should break the law of this land. I believe in the rule of law.
	To most rational people, it seems extraordinary that the Government have dropped what we were told were important pieces of legislation owing to a shortage of parliamentary time, yet—surprise, surprise—have miraculously found time to buy off the hounds on the Labour Back Benches who are giving glorious tongue to their dissatisfaction with their party and its obvious failures. The deal to save the skin of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—for the time being—has not gone unnoticed by the people of this country, especially by those whose lives will be adversely affected by a possible ban and those who may lose both their livelihood and their homes.
	While the nation's priorities on the domestic agenda, such as health, rising crime, transport and education, are being sidelined, this matter is being driven by single-issue Back Benchers and campaigning groups who do not have the best interests of the countryside at heart, know little of its ways and care even less about its people. If they succeed in banning hunting, they will be personally responsible for a worsening of animal welfare.

Lorna Fitzsimons: As someone who was brought up in a village at the base of the Pennines and who knows how hard it is to be a hill farmer, may I ask the hon. Lady to accept from me how little foxhunting has to do with many in the rural community? What does she have to say about the priorities for the people among whom I was brought up—education, housing and rural transport? They are far more important to communities in the countryside than foxhunting.

Ann Winterton: The hon. Lady has just shot her own fox. It is the Government's choice to debate this matter at this time instead of the issues in which she says her constituents are most interested.

Bob Spink: May I take my hon. Friend back to the point that she was making about the welfare of the fox? Is she aware that four senior executives of the League Against Cruel Sports have withdrawn their call for a ban on hunting precisely because it has been shown that such a ban would have adverse consequences for the welfare of the fox?

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a true and worthwhile point.
	Farmers have a statutory obligation to control pests such as foxes. That control should include both dispersal and culling, but never the extermination of an indigenous species. Following the voluntary suspension of hunting owing to foot and mouth last spring—this will answer the question put by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons)—including suspension of the lambing call service, farmers started to report to hunts that acute fox predation was occurring, resulting in severe lamb losses.
	In January, the Farmers Union of Wales reported that:
	"The ban on foxhunting over the last year has led to an explosion in the fox population to unprecedented levels. In some cases, farmers who lost six or seven lambs to foxes normally have seen the numbers jump to between 35 and 40"—
	[Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers who are shouting "Rubbish" should tell that to Welsh farmers.
	The need to control the fox population cannot be challenged, but the debate, more often than not, focuses on cruelty or perceived cruelty. I commend the former Home Secretary for setting up an independent committee of inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales, commonly known as the Burns committee after its distinguished chairman. I only wish that the Government had been as forthcoming in seeking after the truth about the cause and handling of the foot and mouth epidemic—but we all know why they were not.
	At no point did Lord Burns conclude that hunting was cruel. While making the obvious point that hunting
	"seriously compromises the welfare of the fox",
	the report noted that
	"insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught".
	One of the most senior vets in the UK, Lord Soulsby, went on record to condemn the organisations which claimed that the former phrase equated to cruelty and hence justified an end to hunting. He said:
	"At no point did the committee conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty. Yet many bodies have erroneously—I repeat the word 'erroneously'—quoted the Burns report, stating that it clearly demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs caused cruelty. The report did not state that."

Gordon Prentice: In the hon. Lady's pony club days, did she ever go hare coursing? Did she consider then or does she consider now that hare coursing is cruel?

Ann Winterton: In fact I did not go hare coursing in my pony club days, but I did go hare coursing once with a local veterinary surgeon. Funnily enough, it is the only field and country sport in which people do not seek to kill the quarry, and I do not personally believe it to be cruel, but the hon. Gentleman obviously does.
	In addition, Burns concluded that none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. There are welfare implications for all legal methods of managing the fox population and, on welfare grounds, no clear case has been made to separate hunting from other forms of control as a method that should be banned.
	The question that has to be answered by those who seek to ban hunting is: what alternative method would cause less suffering, would be more natural—after all, foxes themselves live by hunting—and would provide such benefits to conservation and biodiversity? Farmers sympathetic to hunting have enhanced the British landscape by ensuring that hedgerows, thickets and woodland are well managed, providing an appropriate habitat for a variety of species. Research has shown that areas managed for hunting are significantly more biologically diverse than unmanaged areas.
	People are important too, however, and what a terrible impact a total ban on hunting would have on the rural economy, which is still reeling from the after-effects of foot and mouth disease. With average net farm income having fallen to £5,200 per farm in England and £4,100 in Wales, it seems an act of spiteful vandalism to destroy literally thousands of jobs in deeply rural areas, when it is simply not necessary to do so and where no meaningful alternative employment exists.

Angela Browning: The Burns report clearly said that the abolition of hunting would have an impact in some parts of the country, and my constituency, with its six hunts, would be just such an area. In July 2000, The Mid Devon Gazette showed from a four-week survey in my constituency that 69.32 per cent. of the population wanted to retain hunting. That shows how important hunting is not just to huntsmen, but to the wider community.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. Hunting and other field and country sports are very important to the rural economy, and a ban would have truly devastating knock-on effects on rural businesses, such as feed merchants, blacksmiths, veterinary practices, the horse industry, and village pubs and hotels, among others. Even a former Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin)—has acknowledged that hunt kennels provide a valued service to the farming industry by removing casualty and fallen stock, the considerable cost of which would have to be borne by farmers themselves if hunting were banned, thereby adding to their current financial difficulties.
	Hunts are not only at the heart of economic activity in the countryside, but play a vital role in organising a whole range of social activities that provide a lifeline in the more remote areas, which are so badly served compared to their urban and suburban counterparts; and everyone is welcome to participate, irrespective of age, income or social background. [Interruption.] Sadly, when I say such things, Labour Members merely scoff. No doubt they live very comfortable lives; they do not know how hard it is in the upland areas of the United Kingdom to farm and get a living from the land, or how remote and cut off people often are.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Ann Winterton: I do not intend to give way for the very simple reason that many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I believe that we should hear their voices.
	Before Members vote on the three options before them today, perhaps they should also consider the efforts to legislate on this difficult and sensitive issue north of the border. The Scottish Parliament set a damaging constitutional precedent by ignoring the findings of its own Rural Development Committee, which spent 15 months taking evidence before concluding that it would be
	"difficult or impossible to amend the Bill into a form which will adequately meet the aim of ending cruelty and for this reason recommends that the general principles of this Bill should not be agreed to".
	Yet bigoted Members of the Scottish Parliament, who played no part whatever in the scrutiny of the legislation, voted for a ban without even arguing the case, let alone mentioning animal welfare. If the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) thinks that an honourable course of action, he and I must differ.

Hugo Swire: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ann Winterton: I am sorry, but I said that I would not give way.
	The Bill was promoted in Scotland as a modernising measure to take us into the 21st century, without offering 21st century solutions for species management. As a result, the Bill is the equivalent of a dog's breakfast, and police in the borders have said that it is
	"almost unworkable . . . because the legislation is not clear".
	Serious concerns were also expressed about the lack of police resources—a valid point that is reflected throughout England and Wales, too.
	We have the precedent before us of an in-depth independent inquiry set up by the present Government, and we should, if we use common sense, avoid the trap that Holyrood fell into, which generated headlines such as "Daft as a Brush" in the Sunday Mail, "NHS not foxes is top priority" in The Sun, "A vote for flawed and ambiguous legislation" in The Scotsman, "This law is an ass" in the Daily Mail, "Executive must intervene with compensation" in The Herald, and The Independent said:
	"The mark of a civilised society is its tolerance of unpopular behaviour".
	Surely this issue is about civil liberty and personal freedom. It is quite wrong in principle to make criminal an activity just because a certain percentage of the population, often guided by misleading information, disapproves of it. Labour Members may say that a majority of people think that way, but they should read the most recent polls, which show that opinion has changed.
	In the light of the Scottish Bill, which will most certainly be subject to at least two legal challenges when it has gained Royal Assent, it would surely be foolhardy to follow in those flawed footsteps. However, I recognise with a certain amount of sadness that tonight's votes will reflect not the arguments for hunting put before the House in the debate, but perhaps the prejudices of the past and the imagined prejudices of the present.
	The opportunity to destroy yet another institution of our great nation will be irresistible to some people, including the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who was heard to boast on Jimmy Young's show the other day that they have the numbers in this Parliament to do just that. He and his ilk loathe anything to do with tradition and seek to destroy it at every opportunity, but perhaps he and others should recall that this Parliament cannot constitutionally bind its successor and a future Parliament can undo anything it wishes to. I urge the House to reject the ban and to vote unequivocally for the status quo: self-regulation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has put a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches during the debate and that that limit starts now.

Gerald Kaufman: The House has a shameful record on social reform which stretches over centuries. It always lags behind public opinion and has done so on divorce, capital punishment, ending the criminalisation of homosexual acts, and animal welfare. The same arguments have been expressed throughout—the very same arguments that we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
	Let me remind the House of a similar argument. Talking about a countryside pursuit, a right hon. Member of this House said that it
	"had existed for more than 1000 years without . . . having been supposed to be pregnant with any of those crying evils that are now"
	associated with it. He went on to say that there was
	"a busy and anxious disposition to legislate on matters in which the laws are already sufficient to prevent abuse. The House should intervene only when an Act was generally and gravely called for, not to glorify petty, personal and local motives which were infinitely below the dignity of Parliament."
	That is almost identical to the hon. Lady's statements, but those remarks were made on 18 April 1800 by the right hon. William Windham in defence of the practice of bull baiting. The hon. Lady talked about a red rag to a bull. The fact is that it took 35 years from that date to get bull baiting banned.
	Ever since I was elected to the House of Commons 32 years ago, I have been voting and instituting measures to ban hunting with dogs. I am perfectly ready to spend the second half of my parliamentary career doing so, but I would prefer to spend my time on other matters.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to pursue my argument a little further, I will give way if I have time.
	The House will vote tonight, and the Minister confirmed that he will make a statement in the next few days. If the House votes for a complete ban, as I very much trust it will, I cannot understand what it is that the Minister will have to tell us. If he believes that our House voting for a ban will persuade the other House to vote for a ban, then he is indeed an optimist, but to quote "South Pacific", he is a cockeyed optimist, because that will not happen. I cannot understand what my right hon. Friend will say other than that a Bill implementing a full ban will be introduced by the Government in this Session preferably, or in the next Session at the latest, and that if the Bill is passed by this House, the Government will put it through under the Parliament Act if it is blocked in the House of Lords.
	If my right hon. Friend turns out to have something else to say other than that the Government will introduce a Bill instituting a full ban, one must assume that it is what the press is going to call a compromise, and that is utterly unacceptable. In addition, that would introduce a new constitutional doctrine. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited me to be a member of the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords, he gave me terms of reference that began:
	"Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament".
	That is the policy of the Prime Minister and the Government, but it is not pre-eminent unless the House of Commons gets its way in a conflict with the House of Lords. Any compromise will mean not that the House of Commons is getting its way, but that the House of Lords is getting its way, and that will mean that the Government are abandoning their position on the pre-eminence of this House.
	The doctrine does not say that the Government get their way; it says that the House of Commons gets its way. What is more, for the House of Commons to get its way, whether with Government legislation, which this measure would be, or with private Member's legislation, it does not need as big a majority as it is possible that we will get tonight. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Industry, we used the Parliament Act to get through the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill when we had a majority of one in this Chamber. If we can do it on a majority of one, we can do it on the kind of majority that we will have tonight.

Andrew Turner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 was taken through the House, I asked why Opposition Members had voted in support of a Government move of which many Opposition Members and I strongly disapproved? Sir Keith Joseph told me that it conformed with the proprieties and rules of the House. In what way does it conform with the proprieties and rules of the House that a Bill that forms no part of the Government's manifesto is taken through under the Parliament Act?

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman knows little if anything about the history of the House of Commons if he promotes that point of view. The Parliament Acts were introduced first by the pre-war Liberal Government and then amended by the Attlee Government so that the House of Commons could get its way in a conflict with the House of Lords. That is what the Parliament Acts are about, and I am simply asking my right hon. Friends to endorse and reinforce my terms of reference as a member of a royal commission.
	If my right hon. Friends adopt a new doctrine that when there is a difference between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, there has to be a compromise that gives way in some degree to the House of Lords, I will assume that that will apply not merely to legislation on hunting with dogs, but to everything else. I give notice to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip that if this House of Commons votes for a total ban and then gives way to the view of the House of Lords, she need not expect to see me in the Division Lobbies in the future when this House is asked to vote down Lords amendments to Government legislation. I very much hope that we shall not come to that. The whole point about being as sickeningly loyal as I am is that when one does rebel, one does it with a vengeance, and if necessary that is what I shall do.
	I deliver that message to the Chief Whip and say to Ministers that there is only one way to resolve the problem—to enact what the House of Commons votes for tonight. Let no one believe that if that does not happen, we will stop. We will go on until we get the complete ban. It will have to be done some time, so do it now.

Norman Baker: It falls to me to kick off the debate on behalf of my party because I am responsible for animal issues. I should make it clear that it has long been a tradition of the Liberal Democrats to have a free vote on the subject and I confidently expect my colleagues to split three ways in the Division Lobbies at 10 o'clock. [Interruption.] Members of other parties make a noise about that, but I think that there is a free vote on both sides of the House. It is worth pointing out that we have heard only from Labour Members in favour of a ban and from Conservatives in favour of the status quo. I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) who will help to balance the debate.

Hugo Swire: Given that the Liberal Democrats will operate a free vote, is it still official Liberal Democrat party policy to ban hunting with dogs?

Norman Baker: We have explained many times that it has long been a tradition for our party conference to vote for a ban on hunting. It has equally been the case, however, that the parliamentary party has consistently decided that this is a matter of conscience and people can vote accordingly. There is nothing wrong with that, and it would be healthier if we saw greater diversity in the other parties.
	I have a sense of déjà vu because this is far from the first debate on hunting in which I have participated, and the same is true of many Members. My constituents say to me, "Another debate on hunting? Why are you not discussing the NHS, Government sleaze or Iraq?", and I have some sympathy with that view.

Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker: No, not at the moment.
	I have sympathy with that view not because this issue is not important—it is—but because we are going round and round in circles. We have discussed foxhunting many more times than any other issue. We have had at least three votes on this substantive issue since 1997, and today we will have the fourth. On each occasion there has been a clear majority in favour of an outright ban. Two Committees have undertaken long proceedings—25 sittings in all. Since 1997, Parliament has spent 125 hours and 47 minutes discussing hunting, and the clock has been started again today.
	As I said, in each vote there has been a substantial majority in favour of a ban. On 20 November 1997, on Second Reading of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, 411 voted for the principle of the Bill, which was to ban hunting, and 151 voted against. On 20 December 2000, when we were offered a multiple choice option similar to the one that we are faced with today, 387 voted for an outright ban and 174 voted against. On 27 February 2001, on Third Reading of the Hunting Bill, 319 voted for a ban and 140 against. Nobody can be in any doubt about the view of the House of Commons. Some Members may feel that that view is misguided, but it is absolutely clear. The view of the House of Commons is that there should be a ban.
	I wonder how we have managed to proceed through an entire Parliament and into the next one without seemingly making very much progress. Frankly, an abdication of responsibility and leadership by the Government has led us to the situation today. There has been a failure to respond to the general public and the views of the House. The Labour party promised a vote on hunting in its 1997 manifesto. It stuck to the letter of that promise, but although everybody thought that the vote on hunting would be followed by legislation, there was nothing of the sort; it was an indicative vote. What was the point of it? It got us nowhere.
	There followed a period in which the Countryside Alliance was making its views very plain and Ministers took fright. The previous Home Secretary set up the Burns inquiry and hoped that the issue would go away or somehow be resolved, even though there are irreconcilable views in the House. Most cynically of all, as I pointed out in my last speech on the matter, in January 2001, when the election was approaching and it was obvious that traditional supporters of the Labour party in particular were unhappy with the Government's inaction on the issue, a Bill was introduced which stood no chance whatever of becoming law.

Roger Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nature of the Welsh countryside and Welsh agriculture means that legislation on hunting would be best undertaken by the Welsh Assembly, although given the circumstances we would like to work towards agreement in this House?

Norman Baker: I agree. I remember the Minister picking me up on that point in the previous debate on the subject and disagreeing with that in principle. However, although I personally strongly hold the view that hunting should be banned, I think that it is for the Welsh Assembly to sort out the situation in Wales. It is wrong for us to legislate on this issue in Wales. The position would be stronger if this were a devolved matter, and the Welsh Assembly could reach its own conclusions.

Alun Michael: Just to make it clear, this is not a devolved matter; that is the point.

Norman Baker: Absolutely. We are saying that it should be a devolved matter, and that is an area of unity between Liberal Democrats and, I suspect, Plaid Cymru and members of other parties in the House.
	We have come full circle. Today we will have an indicative vote—exactly the same sort of vote as we had in December 2000. We are no further forward. I listened to the Minister carefully, and he made no guarantee that the Government will do anything after the vote. They will make a statement, but we do not know what it will say, and nobody has been able to tease that out of the Minister.
	I make one plea to the Government: for goodness sake, put this issue to bed. It has been going on long enough. I suggest that, constitutionally, the Government ought to adopt the views of the Commons. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) expressed the view that that is the proper position. We will have had four votes in two Parliaments delivering a large majority in favour of a ban. The Government cannot go on having these votes year in, year out, only to leave them hanging in the air. They may want to sit on the fence and they may hope that something will turn up to save them, but it will not. In the end, they will have to get a grip and do something.
	I ask the Minister to make it clear what the Government will do if the House again votes for an outright ban and the House of Lords votes for retention. Will the Government invoke the Parliament Acts and bring the Bill back? We have not had a clear answer to that question. What if the Lords votes for the so-called middle way? Does that make a difference? I do not think that it does. Will the Minister agree that the issue needs to be settled once and for all, and that this should be the last substantive debate on hunting in this House?
	I turn briefly to one or two personal remarks to set out my position. I have listened carefully, as I am sure have hon. Members throughout the House, to my constituents on this issue, and there was a diversity of views, as one might expect. The majority is clearly in favour of a ban. The letters in my postbag are about 10:1 in favour of a ban, and they come from people in urban and rural areas. I do not believe that this should be portrayed as an urban versus rural issue; that is a red herring. There are people in towns who want hunting to continue, and there are people in rural areas—a majority, I believe—who want hunting to be banned.
	A ban is appropriate. As I said, these are my personal views; I am not speaking on behalf of my party. I do not accept that the method of foxhunting, which involves cruelty and stress to the animal, can be justified by the pleasure that it gives to those who hunt or by the ancillary benefits which I accept flow from hunting.

Henry Bellingham: What would happen to fallen stock on farms if hunting were banned?

Norman Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come on to farming issues in a moment.
	If hunting is essentially cruel, as I believe it is, the question is whether there are any other factors in the calculation that outweigh that so that hunting can be allowed to continue. I make that calculation carefully because no Liberal wants automatically to jump towards a ban. Indeed, we are often accused of wanting to legalise things rather than to ban them. Is the damage done by not banning something greater than the loss of freedom caused by such a ban? In this case, the answer to that question is yes.

Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker: No, I want to conclude my remarks before long.
	For me, the freedom to hunt is the freedom to inflict unacceptable stress and pain on an animal, and the human freedom to hunt cannot outweigh that consideration. There is nothing new in that argument. We had bear baiting and cock fighting, and we still have hare coursing.

Ann Winterton: It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way. Is he aware of what veterinary surgeons say? More than 300 have written to Members of Parliament to support hunting. They do not agree that stress is placed on the animal. They say that the process is perfectly natural and that death is very quick. Their arguments run counter to the hon. Gentleman's.

Norman Baker: I accept that there are experts on both sides of the argument who will produce conflicting evidence. That is inevitable. However, the Burns inquiry, to which the hon. Lady referred in her speech, concluded that hunting seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. I am convinced that it is cruel.
	In outlawing bear baiting, cock fighting and other such so-called sports, which were once mainstream, we have already accepted that human freedom can be curtailed. I believe that hunting falls into the same category.
	Are there any other offsetting factors? The Burns report referred to 700 people who are directly employed by hunts and between 6,000 and 8,000 who are indirectly employed. If Parliament bans hunting, as I hope it will, I hope it will accept its responsibility towards anyone who loses their job as a consequence, as it did when the legislation to ban fur farming was passed.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to the social structure. That can carry on. There is nothing to stop people dressing up and riding a horse across fields chasing a trail. That is drag hunting, and I would be happy to present the stirrup cup to my local hunt if that was what it was doing. I do not believe that that is a real objection.
	The third factor is the effect on the fox population.

Angela Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker: No, I will not.
	We have had a period of foot and mouth disease in this country, and I would be interested to see some Government figures showing the impact of foot and mouth on the fox population. I have had no representations from my local farmers about the fox population being out of control because hunting was not allowed during that period.
	I have been to see my local hunt; I visited the Southdown and Eridge hunt kennels in Ringmer. I asked how many foxes the hunt caught each year, and the answer was about 50. I do not believe that hunting on that scale has an overall impact on the fox population: it is insignificant.
	Sometimes hunts argue that by catching foxes they are eliminating the weaker strains—which would mean that the fox population was being perpetuated by the hunt. At other times they say that they are solving a problem for farmers by killing a pest. Those two arguments seem slightly contradictory, and they are wheeled out on different occasions, depending on what argument the hunts are facing.
	Does hunting increase or diminish the fox population? That question has not been answered, although I have noticed reports of hunts constructing artificial earths—apparently in order to breed foxes. That seems to be at variance with the need to control the fox population.
	Finally, let me say something about the middle way. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) will violently disagree with me in a moment, but I have to say that in my view the middle way is the worst option of the three. It is a legitimate position to say that hunting should be banned. It is also legitimate to say that hunting has long been the tradition of this country, and should be continued; I do not happen to share that position, but I respect its integrity.
	However, it does not make sense to say that the Government should interfere and set up a massive bureaucracy. Not only would that involve lots of red tapewhich we are all supposed to be againstbut it would appear to give Government approval to what I regard as a cruel sport. The middle way is not a middle way; it is hunting by other means, hunting with knobs onor perhaps the nobs are on the horses.
	I hope that the House will be able to reach a clear conclusion tonight. I would like a ban, but if the House decides to allow hunting to carry on, that is fine. We do not want the middle way, but we do want a resolution of this matter before long.

Kate Hoey: Five years ago, when the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was being discussed, I opposed a ban and said that a way forward suggested by a former chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, Jim Barrington, might be the answer. That was a radically different approach that could have provided guarantees on the animal welfare aspects that concern people about hunting, while still respecting the rights of minorities.
	I am pleased that the work carried out by my colleague Llin Goldingnow Baroness Goldingand by the hon. Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and others, is now being seriously considered as a way forward. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has worked with all the groups and listened to them.
	My reasons for opposing a ban, after looking into what happens, were related to what I discovered about the killing of foxes. I felt strongly that if we were serious about animal welfare, opposition to a ban should be our conclusion. Foxes may be furrier and sexier than rats, but they are still vermin, and need to be controlled and killed. When I consider all the different methods of killing foxes, my view, backed up by Lord Burns, is that hunting with hounds is the most natural way to kill them.
	It is important to read what Lord Burns said, and remind ourselves that he did not find hunting with hounds cruel.

Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Hoey: No, I am not giving way because I have only a few minutes.
	In the House of Lords, Lord Burns was asked whether his report said that hunting was cruel, and he answered no. There is no doubt that the Burns report did not find that hunting was cruel. In fact, it said that if we stopped culling foxes in that way, many of them would die in much more horrible and painful ways, such as by gassing, poisoning or shootingand foxes that are shot may not be killed immediately.
	All that makes it clear that people's reasons for opposing foxhunting are not to do with animal welfare. There is no cruelty involved in foxhunting, any more than there is in shooting, gassing or poisoning foxes. The only people who can genuinely oppose foxhunting are those who do not eat meat, or kill anything, or wear leather. The reality is that we need to kill foxes, and we have to find a way that is as humane as possible.
	We have to be honest about the fact that what really upsets some of my hon. Friendsand, perhaps, some Opposition Members toois the idea that only toffs go hunting. If only hunters did not wear red coats, things might be different[Interruption.] Hon. Members will have the chance to speak later.
	I have spent some time with hunts now, which I had not done last time I spoke on this subject. When I visited the Thurlow hunt recently, and met many of the people involved, I found a more socially inclusive group of people out with the hunt than are to be found on our Back Benches[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Kate Hoey: I shall now quote someone with whom I sometimes do not agreebut on this issue I do. In a recent article in The Sun, Richard Littlejohn wrote:
	I hold no brief for foxhunting. But at a time when the nation is plagued by a drugs epidemic, carjacking, burglary, street robbery, it seems a perverse set of priorities to make criminals out of thousands of people following a sport dating back hundreds of years.
	In my constituency, just down the road in Vauxhall, there are people who want to ban hunting, but there are very few who want to make criminals out of people who hunt. People in my constituency are much more concerned about the fact that their streets are rife with criminals, that their cars are being broken into every day, that they are being mugged and having their mobile phones taken from them willy nilly, and that our streets are increasingly in the hands of real criminals.
	I have to question the priorities of Parliament again. When the lives of our constituents are being made intolerable, what people are really asking for is a ban on being mugged, a ban on having to wait to get into hospital, and a ban on being homeless, or overcrowded and unable to be rehoused. Those are the issues that we as parliamentarians should be concerned about, rather than taking an attitude based on the feeling, We don't like those people, so we'll ban them.
	It is interesting that some people say that perhaps they will still allow fell huntingpresumably because the hunters are not on horses. The idea is that if people are on horses they are different from people on footor that if people, either on horses or walking, are working hard to kill foxes, so long as they are not getting any enjoyment out of it, that is all right. There is muddle and confusion among the people who want to ban hunting, and that is not in the interests of the countryside or of the people of this country.
	I shall end by quoting the Prime Minister. A couple of years ago he talked about
	justice, freedom, tolerance
	and a respect for minorities and said:
	These are the values that drive and govern my political life.
	I cannot believe that we have to take away the livelihood of country people and bulldoze their rights and freedoms, all for the sake of trying to pretend that killing a fox by hunting is any more cruel than killing a fox by any other means. I hope that the House has more sense.

William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and to congratulate her not only on the wisdom of her remarks but on having the courage to speak out against the orthodoxy of her party. I congratulate her heartily on doing so.
	It would be good if the Government could find time to debate a wide range of rural mattersthis is onein the House. They could have found the time to debate the aftermath of the foot and mouth disaster and to learn its lessons, which are not being learned by the public inquiry that ought to be taking place. They could have found the time to debate the need to make sure that meat imports into this country meet the standards of food produced at home. They could have found the time to debate the need to help rural tourism to recover from last year. However, they have not done so, and they have shown how grossly out of touch they are with the feeling of the countryside in the bizarrely inappropriate choice of hunting as the debate for today.
	Some interesting points have been made. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) said that her constituents were more concerned about education, health and transport. That is precisely our point.

Malcolm Savidge: rose

William Hague: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell)I mention him only because of his sedentary interventionswarned about the other place and said that it was a place of privilege. Of course, it has largely become a place of the privilege of knowing the Prime Minister. That is why a large proportion of Members of the other place are sitting there. What is more, we know that the real reason for this debate, which was announced three weeks ago, was not to prevent the pursuit of a single fox by a pack of hounds, but to prevent the pursuit of a particular Secretary of State by the media and by my colleagues in the House.
	Nevertheless, the Government said in their manifesto that they would have a vote on this issue, and, at some stage, they are entitled to do so. As we have discovered, feelings run high on this matter. My constituents, from everything that I have seen over many years, are very much in favour of being allowed to continue to hunt. I represent a very rural constituency. For some, hunting is a practical matter. For example, Hawes and High Abbotside parish council in Upper Wensleydale wrote to me on Friday[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) knows about as much about upper Wensleydale as he does about Timbuctoo, if I may respectfully say so. The letter stated:
	As you will probably be aware, our local hunt, Wensleydale Foxhounds, does not hunt with horses, but on foot. The hunt is often called out at night by farmers to destroy foxes which are killing their animals and this service would be very much missed if this bill comes into force.
	That is simple and practical, and is one of the reasons why the council is in favour of hunting being allowed to continue.
	For others, hunting is a matter of employment. There is no doubt that scores of people in my constituency would lose their jobs if hunting were to be banned. Every Member of Parliament can sympathise with constituents who are worried about losing their jobs. For some, hunting is part of their rural way of life and of maintaining a balance in the countryside between the farmed animal and the wild predator, and of doing so as they have done for a very long time. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to 200 years agoI know that he has now left the Chamberand said that he would spend the remaining half of his parliamentary career campaigning against certain traditions. I will spend the remaining four fifths of mine campaigning for certain traditions, because there is value in them, and people should be freethis is a large part of the caseto pursue their customs, traditions and habits if they do not cause injury or gross inconvenience to others.

Nick Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. [Hon. Members: Right honourable.] I am sorry. I am grateful to the right honourable Gentleman. If he believedI accept that we may dispute thisthat suffering was caused to animals by foxhunting would he still feel that the freedom of the individual came first?

William Hague: I would have to consider the alternatives. Anyone with an understanding of a rural area such as my constituency is in no doubt that some way of controlling the fox population is necessary. There is a choice between the methods of doing so. We live surrounded by predators, and not only when I am here in the House of Commons. If one lives where I live, one hears at night the screech of the owl descending on the mouse, one sees the stoat jumping on to the rabbit, and one captures in one's car headlights the fox going about its business, seeking the new-born lamb or the chicken coop door that has been left open. Predators do not consider the moral rights and wrongs as we do as human beings. They are predators, and will go on being predators in larger numbers. We have created an agricultural society with large numbers of sheep and chickens to support a huge predatory population of human beings numbering 56 million. Of course, that agricultural society can also support a huge fox populationif left to their own devicesthat would wipe out many other species altogether.
	One can read about the ludicrous contortions into which the so-called animal rights movement gets itself. It was reported that, last month, the Essex Wildlife Trust banned foxhunting and then became the target of furious protests by animal rights activists for ordering a cull of a booming fox population. The article stated:
	Since the fox population increased from four to five animals five years ago to about 20 today, the number of breeding pairs of ground-nesting lapwings has decreased from 38 to three, and the number of redshanks from 25 pairs to 10.
	The trust's development manager said about the animal rights protesters:
	When we tell them that we have seen foxes killing lambs and ground-nesting birds, they simply do not accept it.
	That is what we are up against. The protesters think that if the hunting of foxes is banned, the foxes will be deeply grateful and rush round to help the farmer at lambing time. That is the kind of ludicrous misconception that they have.
	We must control foxes somehow. The alternative proposed by the animal rights movement is shooting, because it is clean, easy and so on. No one who has handled a gun could possibly come up with such a naive suggestion. One person wrote to a Sunday newspaper yesterday with an account of having seen a fox shot. The first shot broke the fox's leg, the second hit it from another direction, the third shot knocked it off its remaining feet, the fourth shot failed to kill it, and, in the end, its neck was broken because it was not killed by the four shots. Foxes do not obediently line up to be shot by firing squad. We do not have laser-guided shotguns to home in on them in the night. If shooting is the alternative, it will lead to much greater animal cruelty and inconvenience.

Gerald Kaufman: It sounds to me as though the man using the gun had drunk 14 pints before shooting.

William Hague: It sounds to me like the right hon. Gentleman's serious contribution to the debate was made much earlier.
	In my remaining two minutes, let me make the other part of the case. What of animal cruelty? There will be far greater cruelty to animals if foxes are to be controlled in some other way. There will be cruelty to the hounds that will have to be put downI have not noticed anyone volunteering to take hounds into their homes.

Phil Sawford: rose

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is volunteering. That is very interesting. We shall put down his name to take hounds into his home. I have only two minutes remaining, and I am not going to give way again.
	There will be greater cruelty to the foxes that will be killed in larger numbers by other means. There is also the question of respecting the rights of a minority. We often hear from many hon. Members about the need to respect minorities, and about the need to respect a culture of diversity. Why, therefore, is this particular minority being picked on? Why are people who fish not picked on? One can argue that fishing is an equivalent act of cruelty. The reason is that fishermen are large in number so hon. Members who wish to ban hunting do not pick on them. Why is ritual slaughter under certain religions, in which there is no stunning of the animals, not picked on? Many people would regard it as a great act of cruelty. It is not picked on because we respect particular different traditions and cultures. Why is the tradition and culture of foxhunting not respected when there is no compelling case to do away with it? It is because it can be picked on.
	That is the hallmark of the bully throughout the ages and the signal of the abuse of majority power. If a majority in the House abuse their power in that way, it will be a deeply unattractive spectacle based on prejudice, ignorance and naivety that will do the cause of Parliament no good at all.

Barry Sheerman: I have been consistently in favour of banning hunting from before I came into Parliament and throughout my time in the House. However, I must confess to the HouseI know that this will disappoint some of my hon. Friendsthat I have changed my mind. I shall explain my reasons, because this should be a thoughtful debate. It is an important subject.
	I have been in the House for a long time and suffered a Prime Minister who believed in confrontation. She took on the miners and other minorities and made life hard and unpleasant for those who confronted her. I do not like that style of politics or the way in which some of my hon. Friends and colleagues use our position in power to drive through proposals about which I have certain concerns.
	I approach this issue from a different angle and I wish to share my worries with the House. I have always cared about cruelty to animals. I have always hated it and wanted to minimise it, and I believe that my views have been consistent. However, I have also cared very much about the rural environment and the countryside that we must leave to our children and their children. I worry about both those issues, and most of those who have spoken in the debate agree on that. They want to minimise cruelty to animals and have a decent rural environment. We can have both and I positively believe that there is room for compromise.

Colin Challen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Sheerman: No, because I have only 10 minutes.
	One of my other worries is that many of the zealots on this issueI am not referring to most of my colleagueswill not be content with banning hunting. They will go on to fishing and to the shooting of rabbits, pigeons, pheasants or whatever. They will not be satisfied until, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) says, every sentient animal is protected. That is a dangerous position to take.
	I know that some of my colleagues will not like me saying this, but we cannot separate this debate from other issues. For example, scientific and medical research must use animals in its experiments to push forward the frontiers of science and to help people who have certain diseases. We will be able to control those diseases because, in the long term, research will find the cures. However, the zealots involved on this issuewe cannot divide them uphave caused misery to those pursuing a scientific line of inquiry and carrying out their professional job. What happened to Huntingdon Life Sciences was a blemish on our national life. We must be careful to take a balanced view. These issues go together.
	The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) discounted the third way, but I make an appeal to the House to take it seriously. We should be able to say that the argument is not all on one side. When the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) spoke, I thought, My Goodness, I have got to follow that and agree with some of the things that she said. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is giving the speech a good roasting.
	One thing that many of us share is that we do not like the people who go hunting. I do not like many of them, but many of the people who hunt in the Colne valley and in Yorkshire do not have horses and they do not wear red coats. They hunt to reduce the numbers of what they regard as a pest, and do so in a fairly innocuous way.
	My neighbour is an organic farmer, whom I very much admire. He cares about the environment and does not use chemicals. However, his livelihood is threatened by the fact that rabbits plague his land. The rabbit population is the most difficult thing to control, so my neighbour wants a group of well trained people with dogs and with the right equipment to reduce the rabbit population. However, what does he have to resort to? He has to resort to the use of gas. I do not know whether Members have seen a warren where the rabbits have been gassed, but it is not very pleasant.
	There is something else that human beings have done to rabbitsour cuddly friends. We introduced the disease of myxomatosis and it returned five years ago. I never understood how it returned, but the effects of that man-delivered plague on the rabbit population are not very pleasant at all.
	The more I have considered the subject, the more I have been concerned to learn whether the alternatives are any better. I am not convinced that they are. The turning point for me came when I read the Burns report, and I value highly the work that Terry Burns carried out. He got the balance absolutely right. The report did not conclude that hunting was the cruellest thing that one can do to animals or that it was much crueller than any other method of controlling their numbers. It concluded that there was not much to choose between the various options of killing them. It is not nice to kill an animal, and choices have to be made. I do not believe that the alternatives to hunting are much better.

Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend way?

Barry Sheerman: No.

Gordon Prentice: I want to quote from the Burns report.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend will have his turn to speak and I shall listen to him when the time comes.
	I merely wish to address the issue, and I knew that that would not be popular with some on this side of the House. I have genuinely listened to the arguments, I have thought about them and I have changed my mind. After 30 years of holding one opinion, I have every right to change my mind, to tell the House that I have changed my mind and to give the reasons. All my reasons may not please my hon. Friends and I know that they will probably think that I am something of a deserter. However, the fact is that they must recognise that some people have concerns.
	I note that there are very few people on these Benches compared with the 1997 debate in which I also spoke. I suspect that colleagues and the public outside are getting a little bored with the House's antics on this matter. Most people with common sense will say, Why don't they reach a deal? Why don't they come to some sort of compromise such as a middle way?
	I believe that the Government will be remembered for certain things. I do not want them to be remembered for an obsession with foxhunting and for the hours that we have spent on the issue in this House and in Committee. However, people might remember us for that. I disagree with every word of some previous speakers in that I believe that the Government are delivering better health, better education and better law and order on our streets. I do not want all those achievements to be forgotten or for someone to write in 10 or 20 years' time that this Government were obsessed with hunting with dogs.
	There is a way ahead, and it is called the middle way. It is a compromise under which we can cluster. We can reach a compromise with the other House, and that is the way forward. I urge my colleagues to think seriously about the issue and not to remain in the trenches of prejudice where they have been for too long.

John Gummer: Perhaps the earliest political discussion that I remember is one that took place when I was at university and we discussed the conclusions of the Wolfenden report and made the distinction between sin and crime. It was an important distinction to make. Many things that we do not approve of should not necessarily be made criminal. The first point that this debate should take into account is that it is not sensible to make criminals of all those of whom we disapprove or make criminal those activities that we do not wish to take part in ourselves and that we would perhaps prefer others not to enjoy.
	A tolerant society is one in which we criminalise an activity only as a last resort. Toleration is not just about allowing people to do things of which we approve, but about allowing them to do things of which we do not approve. Sadly, sometimes people who want to ban hunting forget that; they also forget that many of the things that they do are not approved of by other people. As minoritiesin one way or another we are all minoritiesthey rely on the majority respecting, whenever humanly possible, their right to act as they want; they do not want that right interfered with because they are a minority.
	That is even more important in a multicultural and multiracial society. As a Minister, I had to face up to the issue of ritual slaughter, which I dislike very strongly. Religiously and philosophically, I believe that it is wrong; it is based on an unacceptable historical argument. However, for some people, it is a religious belief; Jews and Muslims have a right to live in our society and be respected. So, although I hated the concept of ritual slaughter, I agreed to its continuance because I believe in toleration; one should tolerate those with whom one disagrees. Above all, one does not put one's own views on such matters above the serious beliefs of others.

Andy King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No, the hon. Gentleman has already expressed his views clearly in a sedentary intervention. If he thinks that ritual slaughter, in which Jews and Muslims believe, is equivalent to bear baiting or bull fighting, he demonstrates the triviality of his thinking.

Ann Widdecombe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Gummer: No.
	One must ask whether hunting is so immoral that it cannot be accepted. Some people believe that the House can enforce a secular morality; I dread to think what kind of things it might do, or might have done, if it acted on that. Nobody with religious views in Judaeo-Christian historywhether Anglican, Roman Catholic or Orthodoxbelieves that hunting is immoral, which begs the question of how those who claim the right to forbid others to do something on moral grounds manage to maintain their position. People whom we do not expect to take a clear moral position make it plain that they have taken such a position. It is hard to claim to be more moral than the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury, particularly when one is an elected Member of Parliament.

Malcolm Savidge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No, I have not got a lot of time and want to address the question of reality[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

John Gummer: I find it hard to accept the arguments of people who want a ban when they do not appear to understand how the natural world works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) gave a graphic description of the basic predatory characteristic of the natural order. We are part of the predatory chain, but our job includes keeping the balance in nature. The difference is that we have the right and ability to choose. The problem is not that we choose between killing foxes and not killing them; we have to choose the mechanism and the method by which we kill them.
	The Burns report is only the latest in a series of investigations, all of which concluded that if hunting is not the least cruel option, it is certainly no crueller than the alternatives. It is all very well for people to go on voicing their opinions, but anyone who has looked seriously at the issue has come to that conclusion. If we deal with the reality of the situation, and if we decide to be as lacking in cruelty as possible, we must take the view that hunting is the best way of undertaking a necessary action.

Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No, we only have 10 minutes each; the hon. Gentleman has spoken ad nauseam on the subject, and no doubt we shall hear from him again.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks was right that some people's view on animals includes the belief that we should not intervene in the natural world at all. Dare I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that that view is heretical because it suggests, untruthfully, that nature would be much better if humans were not here at all? One must distinguish between those who take a sentimental Mable Lucy Atwell view of animals and those who understand the nature of the countryside and the role which mankind is supposed to play in it.
	On the grounds of reality, we have to choose how we are going to keep foxes under control; I maintain that hunting is much the best way. Some people, however, believe that the debate is not about morality, diversity or reality. They take a puritanical view; they do not mind what people do as long as they do not enjoy it. I find it extremely difficult to accept the position of people who wish to stop others doing what they want because they think their opinion so important that it must be imposed on the rest of society.
	That fascist element has characterised much of the argument that has taken place. Fascism is about doing to the minority what one would never get away with on a majority, and has been a distinctive feature of our debate. People who wish to get rid of hunting are afraid to say that they would like to get rid of fishing. There is no need to control the fish population, and people are allowed to treat them as they wish. There is a need to keep the fox population under control, but we are not allowed to do so. Members who want to deal with hunting are afraid to deal with fishing because they are afraid of offending the many voters who fish.
	At stake is the diversity of our society; a sensible morality which is not overcome by sentimentality; an understanding of the reality of circumstances; and, above all, standing up for freedom and toleration. The idea that we would use the Parliament Act to cut back

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has every right to change his mind, but he should have spent more time reading the Burns report, paragraph 60 of which states:
	Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out.

Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Prentice: I do have 10 minutes; if the hon. Gentleman will let me make some progress, I will give way.
	The report goes on to make observations about special circumstances in upland areasthe point on which the hon. Gentleman is presumably trying to intervene.
	The other person who has changed her mind is my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I have a copy of a letter to one of her constituents, dated 22 March 1994admittedly, quite a long time agoin which she says:
	Please be assured that I will actively support all moves in Parliament to ban hunting and to improve animal welfare generally.

Kate Hoey: I have never made a secret of the fact that that letter was written, but the difference between me and some of my colleagues is that, since then, I have begun to listen, look and understand.

Gordon Prentice: I was going to say that I might not need 10 minutes to explain my views, but perhaps I will.

Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Prentice: No. I want to speak bluntly, because on this issueas on so many othersI am the Government's best friend.
	The indicative votes are worse than useless and will tell us nothing that we do not already know. I believe that hunting with dogs is cruel, inflicts unnecessary suffering and should be banned. Such sentiments are not being uttered by some Marxist from a different planet[Interruption.]not on this occasion, at least. Blue-chip organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have argued such views for years, but matters are not straightforward. The Prime Minister said recently that the third way is entering its third phase, but on this issue we seem to be stuck for ever. We are back where we started, endlessly dancing around andas the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) saidgetting nowhere.
	I shall give the House three guesses as to who said, in 1999,
	It will be banned, we will get the vote to ban as soon as we possibly can.
	[Hon. Members: The Prime Minister.] They guessed itmy right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is his view, unless he repudiates it and publicly says that he has changed his mind. Journalists tell me that he will join us in the Lobby this evening. That is great, but how do we get from where we are to where we want to be?
	When I bump into the Prime Minister in the Lobby, I shall tell him that the answer is not to bring in a new Billthat would involve further consultation, could take another two years to get on the statute book and may trigger the Parliament Actbut to bring back the Bill that was carried by the Commons in the previous Session and sent to the Lords. I have in my hand a copy of that Bill, which generated some 60 hours of debate. I know what will happen. This evening, we will vote for a ban; tomorrow, the Lords will vote for regulation; and on Thursday the Minister will tell the House that we need to reconcile those two divergent positions. I suspect that he will also say that the Bill that was carried overwhelmingly by the Commons in the previous Session is flawed, and that bringing it back is not an option.
	If we endlessly prevaricate, hesitate and vacillate, we will lose a lot of support and people will start to ridicule us. Perhaps they will ridicule the Prime Minister and, by extension, the rest of us. On this issue, ridicule and mockery would be very difficult to cope with, especially when an option exists. That could be avoided by using the Parliament Act. The matter could be done and dusted by Octoberat the end of the current Session. The alternative is to allow it to drag on until 2003-04.
	As I said, the Minister will probably tell us that the original Bill is unworkable, yet it was piloted through Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) and it covered all the ground.

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Prentice: No. My hon. Friendwho was a Home Office Minister and took advice from parliamentary draftsmensaid that the Bill was workable. Even if it is flawed in some respects, the answer is not to throw it in the bin but to pass it and introduce a short, technical Bill in November to plug the gaps
	There is no middle way. A middle way is an illusionit is chasing moonbeams. The issue is not just the welfare of foxeswe heard earlier about the South Staffordshire pony clubbut of deer, mink and hares. According to the pamphlet published in November 2000, the Middle Way Group had no policy on hare coursing and hare hunting, although I am not entirely sure whether it has a such a policy at the moment.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) sought to intervene just a few moments ago, and I shall give way after I quote his comments in Standing Committee. He said that
	the purpose of hare coursing is not to inflict unnecessary cruelty on the hare but to watch two greyhounds competing to show how skilled they are at turning or moving another animal.[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 January 2001; c. 183.]
	Why are greyhounds not muzzled, therefore? I invite him to intervene and say whether he believes that greyhounds should be muzzled, but I suspect that he will not.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, because every time I do so I remind him of the fun that we had

Gordon Prentice: Get to the point.

Edward Garnier: I shall forget about that particular incident. The Minister for Rural Affairs would agree that the original Bill is unworkable because, as a Back Bencher, he participated in Standing Committee and saw how unworkable it was. I suspect that that experience is seared on his ministerial memory. On muzzling, I do not accept that it would answer the hon. Gentleman's point.

Gordon Prentice: If a hare could speak, it would answer that point.
	I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield that the Burns inquiry concluded that hare coursing is carried out for largely recreational purposes. In essencethis always excites a reaction from Opposition Memberswe are talking about blood sports and killing for fun. In 21st century Britain, killing for fun should not be allowed.

Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Prentice: No, I will not. As my amendment was not called for debate this evening, I hope that I will be allowed to raise this issueand, if necessary, to vote on itat the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party at 11.30 am this Wednesday, before my right hon. Friend the Minister explains to the House the Government's definitive position. It would be eccentric if Labour MPs were not allowed to express their views on whether the Hunting Bill should be brought back and the matter resolved once and for all in the current Session.

Ann Widdecombe: Future generations will look back on some things in disbelief, just as we look back in disbelief at cock fighting, bear baiting and, more recently, badger digging. One of the things on which they will look back in disbelief is that at the beginning of the third millennium we were still debating in this Chamber whether it was right and proper to allow people to chase an animal to exhaustion, with its killers closing in on it, causing it the most unspeakable fear before its death, and all in the name of tradition.
	I have found some of the arguments mounted on the other side of the debate today incredible. Instead of making the case for keeping hunting, those in favour have sought to question the motives of those of us who believe that it should be abolished. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) painted a wonderful picture of life under Labour. Apparently, one cannot walk down the street without having one's phone nicked and nobody can get an operation under the NHS. She said that those issues were more important. I agree, so let us get this issue out of the way and then we can concentrate on those more important issues.
	The hon. Lady also claimed that those who opposed hunting were anti-toff. Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for whom I have tremendous respecthe is my wonderful and fantastic right hon. Friendended up by saying that opposition to hunting was a product of prejudice and not liking the sort of people who hunt. Anti-toff? Moi? I am one of the few people in this Chamber who upheld the rights of hereditary peers to carry on in the House of Lords. I actually believed in that. I was one of thoseand my right hon. Friend knows itwho argued for the repeal of the iniquitous Act that stopped them. To suggest that somehow I am prejudiced against what have been called toffsit is a stupid expressionis a nonsense.
	Apparently, I do not like people who go hunting. My parents hunted. I like my parents very much indeed.

Henry Bellingham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her recent appearance in the programme When Louis Met Ann Widdecombe. Am I right in thinking that when her drawing room was filmed I saw some very nice hunting prints?

Ann Widdecombe: Yes, indeed. They are wonderful, colourful scenes of olde England, and in olde England they firmly belong.
	It is true that the Burns report said that hunting compromises the welfare of the fox. The only thing that surprises me about that is that it should take all those learned men all that time to decide that.

Gregory Barker: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Ann Widdecombe: No. I have given way once and I do not intend to give up too much of my time.
	One hon. Member told us to beware, because if we gave in on hunting, fishing would be next, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that fishing would not be abolished. Pro-hunt Members must make up their minds about which side of that argument they are on.
	We also heard the usual old nonsense that banning hunting would affect employment. Yes, it will affect employment, but as I said in a previous debate, if we abolished crime we would put all the police out of work. If we abolished ill-health we would put all the nurses and doctors out of work. Will anybody argue that we should preserve crime and ill-health in order to keep people in jobs?
	Hunting is either right or wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that we must respect certain things because people sincerely believe in them religiously. I am not sure who believes in hunting religiously, but he argued that people's religions must be respected and that they should be allowed to do anything in the name of liberty that their religion dictates. Fine. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's private Member's Bill to legalise polygamy.
	Even from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, who should know better, we heard all the arguments about how it is natural to hunt and to be a predator, and that that is practised widely throughout the animal kingdom. Yes, but should Members of Parliament take their standards from the animal kingdom? Do we seriously think that we should determine whether something is right or wrong by whether the animals do it? That seemed to be the proposition made by some of those who support hunting.
	We are also told that the issue is one of liberty, and nothing else. It is about the liberty to do anything one wants to do. However, it has always been the purpose of the law to curtail liberty to do something that is believed by the democratically elected body of this House to be wrong. We eliminated cock fighting, bear baiting and badger digging. I do not say that those activities equate with hunting. Hunting is much less wrong than those activities, but my argument is that we curtail liberty when we believe that something is wrong.

Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend think that fishing is wrong? If she is taking a stand on the issue of cruelty, her speech is illogically nonsensical if she would not also argue for banning fishing.

Ann Widdecombe: I shall come to that point in a minute. Some people argue for the retention of hunting on the basis that it is the normal method of fox control and that if we get rid of it something vastly more cruel will be put in its place. The Burns report says that hunting is responsible for only 6 per cent. of all fox destruction[Interruption.]

Gregory Barker: rose

Simon Thomas: rose

Ann Widdecombe: The other 94 per cent.[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is on her feet and is entitled to be heard.

Ann Widdecombe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your protection against my various colleagues who wish to take issue with me.
	Hunting is responsible for only 6 per cent. of fox destruction. The idea, therefore, that we wish to abolish the only means of fox control is wrong. What that figure proves beyond doubt is that hunting is not even an efficient pesticide, which is just about the one argument that could be made for keeping it.
	If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose. There is some purpose in fishingand I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). I agree that not all fishing has a purpose, but one can fish and then eat the result. [Hon. Members: Not all the time.] I did not say that that applied to all fishing. Either my hon. Friends were not listening or they did not want to listen.
	The last argument that is often mounted is that those who hunt want to be left alone and that they cause no problem to other people. Those who make that argument should read a letter from a rural resident who has lived for 20 years in a foxhunting area of Hampshire. Her animals have been attacked, and she has to keep them in whenever the hunt is in the area. She talks about the immense damage that hunt supporters do to verges and other parts of the countryside and she says that although the hunt claim to care for their own animals, the state of the horses and hounds at the end of the day calls that claim into question.
	It is right that this House should consider whether to ban hunting. When everything is added up, the argument is decidedly in favour of a ban. However, we are all entitled to our views and neither side should imagine that the views of the other are the product of prejudice or ignorance.

Tony Banks: I am grateful for having been called

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that it is now the convention of the House that only Members who were present for the opening speeches are called during a debate. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) came into the Chamber at five minutes to 6.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that he is correct, save that the hon. Member for West Ham was attending a meeting of the House of Commons Commission? I call Mr. Banks.

Tony Banks: rose

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I attended that meeting, may I be called too?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may well succeed in catching my eye.

Tony Banks: I was about to make that point. I had no choice but to attend on Mr. Speaker at the Commission, and it was a privilege to do so. I found the experience a damn sight more intellectually stimulating than certain aspects of this debate.
	May I say to, on this occasion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), that it is a privilege to follow her? She made a brave speech. Frankly, nothing more needs to be said and we could all go into the Lobby, but I have brought my speech and I intend to make it. If the Conservative party chose her as its leader, the Labour Government would find themselves in considerable difficulties. Fortunately, I know that such good sense does not prevail on the Opposition Benches.
	I say to the right hon. and pious Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who unfortunately has gone[Hon. Members: He is back.] I say to his holiness that it is interesting that he mentioned ritual slaughter, about which I have said a number of things in the House before. He says that we should respect those religious conventions. What about Sharia law and stoning to death for adultery? Would he suggest that we must also respect that? If we did, there would be an awful lot of stone dodging in this Chamber.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for whom I have a great deal of respect, says that we should get on to other matters and asks why we are obsessed. I have heard him make two speeches since he stood down as Conservative leader, both on this subject. A large number of Members are in the Chamber, so clearly we are interested, and the idea that the debate is forcing other issues out is nonsense.
	People may say, Why aren't you dealing with the problems in law and order, education and transport? Well, we are, but the fact is that this is not an administrative Chamber. We do not run the education service or the transport system or the hospitals. We pass laws. That is what we are here to do. Some say that we are obsessed, even though we have made our decision in favour of a ban so clear on so many occasions, and that those at the other end of the Palace are not obsessed, even though they keep obstructing it. We have our priorities right; Opposition Members and Members of the other place have their priorities wrong.
	We spent more than 100 hours debating the last two Bills on the issue and there is no doubt about what will happen tonight, but I must pick up a couple of points. The first is the idea that foxes are vermin. If they are vermin, why is there a close season? I do not understand that; it makes no sense whatever.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite incorrect. Most foxes are killed outside the close season, which applies only to killing foxes with hounds.

Tony Banks: It seems to me that continual pressure on vermin is the way to deal with them, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, those who support hunting do not want foxes to be eliminated. That is why, for example, foxes were introduced to the Isle of Wight and why certain hunts put carcases out to feed foxesthey need the sport.
	The idea that foxhunting is an effective method of fox control is nonsense. Only about 5 per cent. of foxes are dealt with through the hunt and most are killed on the roads. Indeed, we would probably be better off issuing the hunts with four-wheel drive vehicles so that they can run the foxes over. For me, this is a moral issue. I cannot understand how anyone takes pleasure from killing a wild animal, and the aspect of bloodlust fills me with detestation.
	We have made clear in the Chamber how we feel, and it is about time that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench respected that. I have a lot of time for my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is a man of great compassion, and I know that he wants foxhunting abolished. The fact is that our manifesto said that we would bring the matter to a conclusion, but we can reach a conclusion only if the will of the House of Commons as expressed in a vote is respected.
	I do not understand what the Government are frightened of. The issue is not about town versus country and I have received a large number of letters, as other Members have, clearly from people in rural areas who abhor foxhunting. Indeed, the most recent opinion polls, taken in late January, suggest that a majority of the public favour a ban on foxhunting, hare coursing, stag hunting and mink hunting. Do not forget: this issue involves not only foxhunting, but all those other creatures. No one could call stags and hares vermin or pests.
	With such a majority, what are my Government worried about? Is it the Countryside Alliance? Frankly, they should not worry. Most of its members are die-hard Tories who would not think of voting Labour even if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister formed the Downing street hunt and went into the royal parks to get hold of foxes. There might be a reason for doing that. Not many people know this, but last year 110 foxes were removed from the royal parks.

Mark Simmonds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the poll in The Sun today, which says that 76 per cent. of people who took part in it favour the continuation of foxhunting?

Tony Banks: That is effectively a straw poll based on telephoning, but the MORI poll that I referred to was scientific. The hon. Gentleman should take note of that. Now, what is 17 minus nine?

Ian Cawsey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony Banks: I cannot, because my mental arithmetic, which is rather deficient, tells me that I have only two minutes left.
	Let me say something about the middle way. There is no middle way. We cannot compromise on cruelty. We cannot have some system of Queensberry rules whereby an animal can be ripped to pieces and that is okay. It is totally unacceptable, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister does not come back with a recommendation, following a change of opinion in the House of Lords, that we should accept the middle way. I am sure he will not. Why would the House of Lords change its position and go for the middle way? Because the middle way is hunting by another name. That is all it ishunting with a bit of bureaucracy. Quite honestly, that is totally unacceptable to us.
	We will face an electoral backlash, and I recommend that my right hon. Friend the Minister read the many hundreds of letters that I have received from people who say, This is a matter of good faith for the Government. He must bear that in mind. I trust that he will look after us and I hope that he does not become the political equivalent of St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes, because he has suffered from that in the past. I want him to prosper and do well. The best way to achieve that is to recommend to the Prime Minister that we bring back the Bill that the House passed and the House of Lords rejected.

Kenneth Clarke: I have never taken part in a debate in the House on foxhunting, but we have debated it so frequently in recent times that it is necessary for me to give a word, at least for the benefit of my constituents.
	I have not changed my mind, although I have the greatest respect for those who have over the years. I have always voted against a ban on foxhunting and I have always made it perfectly clear to my constituents on both sides of the argument that I oppose any attempt to ban it. I feel that it would be particularly wrong to invoke the criminal law against people in my constituency who take part in the three hunts that enter it in their traditional pursuit of foxhunting, unless some compelling public interest reason can be found so to do. It is the use of the criminal law that would most appal me.
	I shall not have time, in 10 minutes, to go into all the argumentswhich the aficionados of this debate seem to know backwardsabout the number of foxes killed in particular ways at different times of the year, the employment consequences, and so on, although I have become familiar with most of them over the years.
	I find myself allied with the majority of people who have spoken on this side of the debate so far, when I single out the one thing that places me on this sidemy instinct. The more I listen to the debate, the more I believe that most people on both sides are reacting by instinct when making their personal judgments. No doubt they are doing their best on the subject on behalf of their constituents. My instinct is on the side of a liberal and tolerant approach to society. I agree with all who have said that it should be the aim of the House, in setting the laws for society, to encourage the greatest possible degree of tolerance of a wide variety of lifestyles and customs, and we should hesitate strongly before we intervene against that.
	The remarks of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), with whom I have often debated, were particularly wide of the mark. I do not know whether he was trying to comfort himself by saying that those in favour of foxhunting were somehow akin to those who have been against every other social reform of the last 200 years. I have always been against capital punishment, and on the side of liberal divorce reform. I regard myself as a liberal social reformer. It is absurd of the right hon. Gentleman to say that the invocation of the criminal law in these circumstances is somehow akin to all the enlightened liberal reforms that have been supported on both sides of the House over the last three decades, and which will, I hope, continue to be so supported.
	I sympathise with the difficulty of the courageous Members on both sides of the House who are out of touch with their party majority on this issue, as I suspect that I am out of touch with the opinion of the majority of my constituents. I do not deceive myself on that. There are three hunts in the rural part of my constituency; one third of my constituency is suburban, and two thirds are rural. I suspect that, if an opinion poll were held there today, there would be a majority in favour of banning foxhunting, although I am encouraged by the way in which the national opinion polls appear to have been moving recently, as people face up to what is involved in the issue.
	The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said that there was an enormous majority in favour of a ban in his constituency. With the greatest respect, we do not make the criminal law on the basis of opinion polls. A majority of 9:1 could be in favour of a ban in my constituency, but I would not regard that as conclusive, and I hope that we never would. That would lead to the intolerant attitudes to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has referred. If we start having opinion polls about all the unpleasant and distasteful habits and customs of some members of society, and suggesting that their findings should be made part of the criminal law, foxhunting would come way down the list, and quite a lot of strange enactments would have to go through the House.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a brilliant speech, and, as usual, I admire her courage. I have to say to her, however, that we tolerate polygamy in this country. We do not allow polygamous marriage, because of our views on the family and because we do not think that our civil law should encourage the legal formation of polygamous unions. Unless we change the law, however, someone who comes to this country with his coterie of wiveshaving legitimately been married in a country whose jurisdiction allowed him to do sois indeed allowed to enjoy a polygamous marriage in this country and even, occasionally, to claim benefits for his various family members if anything goes wrong. That would not be popular with my constituents, but I would defend his right to have his polygamous marriages recognised.
	The criminal law should be used only with great care, when someone's behaviour is not only something of which the majorityor any of usdisapprove, but is doing positive damage to the legitimate interests, property or well-being of other citizens, or doing great damage to society. That is the reason we do not normally use the criminal law in areas of this kind.
	Of course, we use the criminal law in relation to animal welfare. This is a matter of judgment and degree. I entirely support the continuance of the ban on bull baiting and badger baiting, because they involve capturing an animal and placing or tethering it in a confined position for the purpose of setting up a bloody fight with dogs, on which people bet or from which they take a certain amount of satisfaction. We regard that as so distasteful and disgusting that it damages society to encourage its prevalence. These are matters of judgment, however, and it is frankly bizarre to leap straight from that standpoint to the banning of the countryside method of foxhunting as part of the cull of foxes that has to take place.
	This is relevant not only because foxhunting is traditional, although that is important, but because it takes place in the setting that it does. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has already mentioned the natural setting, and people's enjoyment of it. I take a great interest in conservation, and in bird watching. When I support the protection of the peregrine and the hen harrier, I am in favour of inhibiting man the hunter. I think that it should be a criminal offence to shoot such birds, because society is impoverished by reducing their numbers. We therefore encourage their numbers to grow. They are, however, fairly deadly killing machines when they attack some of the other birds that I watch. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and everyone who understands nature knows that many animals are predated upon, and that they, in turn, predate.
	In the context of conservation plans, however, we do not have a natural environment any more. We have a man-made environment in this country. We have to manage even the nature reserves that we preserve, and we have to cull. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds often has great difficulty explaining to its members that it really has to cull that Walt Disney-like little duck, the ruddy duck, because it will otherwise damage other, rarer species. Foxes have to be culled, and I find it impossible to draw a judgmental line that involves saying that it is all right to carry on shooting and gassing themand that it is all right to do that to rabbitsbut that it is uniquely unacceptable for people to hunt, in a traditional way and in a natural setting, an animal that hunts in the same setting itself by pursuing and killing its prey.
	We should not be allowed to make criminals of the perfectly respectable, civilised people who take part in hunting. They are law-abiding, decent citizens. I do not hunt, but they are people who would not understand why they were being classed with the criminals of Vauxhall if they were subject to a law such as this. Many of them hunt and fish, and there is no logical distinction between the two activities. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, people do not fish because they are starving and need to eat. They fish because they enjoy the process of pursuing the fish, and many of them throw them back again. Such people do not go rough shooting because they want to eat all the rabbits that they shoot, and we cannot get through all the pigeons that get shot. Pigeons are not shot in sufficient numbers nowadays to protect crops. This is a way of life enjoyed by respectable people, such as the people of the Vale of Belvoir, in my constituency.
	This measure is being driven through largely for the benefit of the prejudices of the Labour party, and being handled in a ridiculous way by dragging it out and by making us vote and vote again until we all become good people and vote in the moderate way that lets the Government off the hook. It is a bizarre way of proceeding, and a parliamentary majority, even of this size, should not be used in this intolerant and unfeeling way. We should vote on the side of reason.

Gerry Steinberg: I want to start by quoting from an article by John O'Farrell in The Guardian on Saturday 2 March, in which he asks:
	If 'country sports' really are a sport, how come the same side always wins? Does this always come as a surprise to the participants? Do the hunters look on excitedly with their fingers crossed to see whether the fox rips the dogs to pieces or vice versa? You don't get the fox being interviewed on Sportsnight beforehand, saying: 'Well Brian, I'm really confident about this one. I've had a couple of fights in the run-up; there was that easy win against Mr. Rabbit, but this is the big one I've been training for'.
	'So you're not worried that the bookies have you at a 1,000:1 against beating this pack of foxhounds?'
	'What, you mean there's more than one of them? Er, excuse meI've just got to call to my agent'.
	Foxhunting is as much a sport as badger baiting or cock fighting was, and it is just as barbaric. One form of cruelty that is often overlooked in this debate is the unnecessary suffering caused to the thousands of dogs used in fox, deer, hare and mink hunting. I am in no doubt as to the immense suffering caused to wild mammals when they are chased to exhaustion, brutally savaged by a pack of hounds or forced to fight underground with terriers. The Burns inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales has been mentioned often today, as we might expect. It concluded that hunting with dogs seriously compromises the welfare of the foxes, deer, hares, and mink. What is often forgotten, however, is the plight of hunting hounds and terriers. No one has mentioned that today.
	The plight of the foxhound starts early in its short life. Contrary to what the Countryside Alliance would have us all believe, it is not natural for foxhounds to hunt foxes. It sickens me to say that puppies that do not show aptitude for hunting, or whose colouring or body shape does not meet the requirements, are usually shot by the kennelman. Foxhounds fortunate enough to make the grade as puppies are trained to chase and kill foxes during the cub-hunting season. It is a particularly unpleasant aspect of hunting that involves the chasing and killing of fox cubs for the purpose of teaching young hounds to kill.
	Hunts will head for wherever the scent of their quarry takes them, which is what makes the route of hunts for live quarry so unpredictable. Many hounds are run over on the roads, or even hit by speeding trains after straying on to railway lines. Others are injured on barbed-wire fences, or are lost from the pack for days on end.
	In November 1999, six hounds were electrocuted and killed as the New Forest Foxhounds trespassed across a railway line. The incident was witnessed by passengers on the London to Bournemouth train that ran over the dead bodies of the hounds. Not only did the incident cause the senseless loss of the lives of six hounds; the delay caused to the train led to further huge delays. Sixty-one other trains were delayed.
	The Wiltshire Times reported the needless deaths of three beagles from the Wiltshire and Infantry Beagles at Steeple Ashton, near Trowbridge. A car hit two of them as they chased their hare across the A350 between West Ashton and Stoney Gutter, and one sustained fatal injuries. Another dog was killed at a nearby roundabout, and the third fatality occurred as the dog tried to make its way back to the pack.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerry Steinberg: No. I have not enough time.
	That is not all. There is no gentle retirement home for these poor animals. When hounds reach the age of six or seven, about half their normal life expectancy, most are simply shot by the very people whom they have served loyally since their birth. That makes a mockery of the hunts' claim that in the event of a ban on hunting with dogs they will have no alternative to shooting them: they shoot them anyway. It is estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 hounds are killed in that way by hunts each year.
	For some time the Countryside Alliance has used its dogs to blackmail the public by arguing, for instance, that all hounds would need to be destroyed in the event of a ban. Being a dog lover, I have looked into that claim. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a mass slaughter of hounds in such circumstances would be irresponsible and unnecessary. The RSPCA has pledged to do all that it can to prevent such needless destruction at the hands of the hunts. The committee of inquiry into hunting with dogs found that
	any need to put down hounds or horses, in the event of a ban, could be minimised if there was a suitable lead-in time before it was implemented.
	The Government's Hunting Bill, produced in March last year, provided for such a lead-in periodalthough I believe that responsible hunts should start to wind down their breeding programmes immediately to reduce the number left in the event of a ban.
	When the time comes for hunts to disband, three options will be open to them: to disband and rehome their hounds, to disband the hunt but keep their hounds, and to convert to drag hunting. I believe that a switch to drag hunting is the preferable option, as it would allow the hunt to continue the so-called sport, the pageantry and the social side while allowing the hounds to continue to be kept in packs. Hounds that cannot be rehomed with drag hunts should be assessed for their suitability for rehoming elsewhere. The RSPCA has offered to work with hunts to help find alternative homes for puppies and grown dogs.
	Perhaps the most brutal and callous form of cruelty inflicted on dogs in the name of sport occurs in what is known as terrier work. Most registered foxhunts use the services of terriermen or fox diggerspeople employed to find, dig out and kill foxes that have found an underground refuge during a hunt. That activity has become a sport in its own right, attracting thousands of enthusiasts who kill an estimated 50,000 foxes a year just for the fun of it.
	Most people are familiar with the illegal practice of badger digging, in which terriers are sent underground to find badgers. That often results in appalling injuries to both dog and badger. Fox digging works in exactly the same way; the only difference is that fox digging is legal, because foxes are not afforded the same legal protection as badgers.
	The legal loophole that allows the digging out of foxes while outlawing the same practice in the case of badgers has provided those engaged in the illegal practice of badger baiting with a convenient alibi. In recent years there have been several court cases in which suspected badger baiters have escapedor attempted to escapeconviction by claiming that they were hunting for foxes rather than for badgers.
	Only last month, a gang of suspected badger baiters escaped conviction owing to the very same loophole. The six men, who were accompanied by 12 dogs12 dogs for one fox!were found by police at the entrance of what was believed to be a badger sett in Wales. They claimed that they had been digging for a fox that had gone to ground. The court heard that two of the dogs had been seen trying to get into a tunnel at the bottom of the hole, and that a squealing noise could be heard. When one of the dogs was pulled out of the tunnel it was heavily bloodstained, and was later found to have badger hairs in its mouth. A veterinary surgeon who examined the dog said
	The injuries to the dog were consistent with dogs fighting a badger.
	The six were acquitted by magistrates who felt it could not be proved that the men were hunting badgers rather than foxes.
	When a fox finds an underground refuge during a hunt, terriers are sent into the earth to locate it. If a terrier finds the fox an underground battle may ensue between the two animals, in which both dog and fox can suffer horrific injuries. The fox is then either flushed from the earth by the terrier, or dug out and shot at close range by a waiting terrierman.
	Not surprisingly, there have been several successful prosecutions of a number of terrier owners for failing to seek veterinary treatment for terriers injured during such encounters. I am pleased to say that a recent case of that type led to recognition from the High Court that those who send terriers into earths where an underground battle may ensue as the terrified quarry tries to defend itself can be guilty of cruelly ill-treating their dogsnot to mention the suffering inflicted on the fox. These can hardly be regarded as the activities of animal lovers.
	Hunting wild animals with dogs inflicts immense cruelty on both dogs and wildlife, and is totally unjustifiable. It can be prevented only by the introduction of a complete banning of such barbaric and bloodthirsty so-called sports.
	Finally, let me make a few observations about the so-called middle way. Again, I quote from John O'Farrell in The Guardian.
	In fact the government is promoting a middle way which would involved foxhunting only being permitted under licence. This would be like solving the problem of burglary by issuing housebreaking permits and requiring the burglars to close the door behind them.
	Proponents of the middle way tell us that it is not a compromise, and I agree. That is about the only sensible thing they say. It is not possible to make hunting slightly barbaric, or to allow animals to be almost torn apart. I cannot see for the life of me what difference it will make to the fox that is torn to shreds if those doing it are licensed. It is plain stupidity: it is a hunter's fallback, and it rubber-stamps cruelty. It is merely

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Alan Beith: The speech of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) reflected an earlier observation by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who said that there could be no compromise over cruelty. The hon. Member for City of Durham delivered a similar message at greater lengthbut this whole area is riddled with compromises, as it has to be.
	Even the legislation preferred by those who want a total ban is full of compromises. It is a compromise that it does not include fishing; it is a compromise that it does not include stalking. Actually it does include stalking, but the last time we considered the Bill the Government tabled an amendmentafter I had pressed them on the pointto exempt it from the effects of the Bill.
	These are not simple black and white issues. We are discussing how species are controlled, and what methods can be used to control them. Some people feel strongly that hunting is a particularly cruel method. As I shall explain, I do not agree. At the end of the day there are compromises. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and others who have worked with him on the middle way proposal seem genuinely to seek a compromise to allay public anxieties about activities that some think should be banned or restricted, while not banning the sport altogether.
	My view has been that we do not need to go that far, and that the kind of supervision that would be put on a statutory basis if one of the options that we are considering tonight were accepted is sufficient. I understand why people want to go further. All these issues involve compromises.
	It is difficult to bring something new to the debate at this stage of the evening, especially given that many of those hon. Members who are here are determined to speak later to express their own strongly held views, whatever side they are on. I want to contribute something from the standpoint of someone who represents an area in which hunting is pretty significant. It is part of the way of life, as are shooting and fishing, although many people hold contrary views; there are plenty of opponents of hunting in my constituency as well as people who take part in it. As someone who is philosophically a liberal, I have to look at it from that philosophical standpoint.
	I first have to look at what we are doing. We are not discussing whether we disapprove of hunting, as some hon. Members do. We are discussing whether it should be a criminal offencewhether it should be banned by law. We should therefore look first at what consequences may follow if it were made a criminal offence. It would undoubtedlyI do not think that the proponents can disagree with thisdeprive a lot of people of the freedom to carry out an activity that they have carried out for many years in the genuine belief that it is a reasonable contribution to the life of the countryside and does not involve unreasonable cruelty.
	A ban would clearly restrict freedom. It would affect jobs. A number of people in my constituency depend wholly on hunting for their employment and indeed their home. It has a wider effect on the rural economy. A great many businesses in areas such as mine would be very adversely affected by a ban on hunting. Saddlers, for example, derive most of their income from hunt-related horse activity, which would reduce sharply if hunting were banned. In an area such as mine, there are landscape benefits when people who support hunting, landowners and farmers, preserve parts of the land in a way that is not the most economically attractive or viable because it is beneficial for hunting or shooting. We all gain benefit from that.
	Those arguments would in themselves still not be sufficient if we could demonstrate that hunting were sufficiently cruel to justify our making it a criminal offence and sending people to prison for it, but that is the argument. There are some arguments that are irrelevant, such as, We do not like the people who do it, which I have heard quite often outside the Chamber and occasionally inside it, or the argument that people who do it enjoy killing. I have often heard that in this Chamber. It is misleading because most of the people who take part in hunting do so for the excitement of the ride and the chase, not for the kill.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alan Beith: I must try to deploy my arguments. I will see if I have any time at the end to allow interventions.
	It is also the case that if the argument had any force, it could be applied to all the methods of controlling vermin, or indeed any species. If a person gets job satisfaction from his work as a mole-catcher, do we ban the control of moles as a species? If a person enjoys rough shooting, do we ban it simply on the ground that he enjoys it? We cannot do that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: What we should be very concerned about is the excesses and the abuses. Where we see hunts where the fox is torn away out of the hole and thrown to the hounds, we have to be very concerned. Where we have hunts where foxes are bred for the sport of it, that is not pest control. That is pure bloody sport. However

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could come to the point.

Alan Beith: I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the same tack. He is looking for ways of ensuring that hunting is carried out properly. That can be done by the supervisory system in the first option. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and others suggest a method that may give more public confidence but that is not the same thing as saying that the proper and well-regulated conduct of hunting should be a criminal offence.
	I was dealing with some arguments that one cannot apply and that are irrelevant. Then there are arguments that are insufficient, such as the fact that one personally does not approve of hunting. Many hon. Members feel very strongly that hunting should not happen, or for that matter that many of their constituents do not approve of it. Again, there is an important distinction between what we do not like and do not approve of, and what we pass laws against.
	Philosophically, as a liberal, I have to address that question time and again. Sometimes I have to revise my opinions on what I am entitled to ban. I am faced with the question: why am I entitled to prevent someone else from doing something that they feel strongly they should be allowed to do? I have to have an overwhelming argument and the overwhelming argument in this case has to be the cruelty argument.
	Any serious examination of the evidence cannot draw a wide distinction between the amounts of cruelty or suffering involved to the fox in the different methods of control and killing. If there are distinctions, they are quite small and marginal. If anything, they may err in favour of hunting. They may not. They may go the other way, but on any analysis, the distinction cannot be said to be of the scale that makes the difference between sending someone to prison and accepting that their activity can be legally carried out even if one does not like it. That is where the argument for a ban falls.

Bob Blizzard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Beith: I must try to ensure that I have deployed all my arguments before I give way again.
	My fear, and it has been expressed by others, is that the only consequence of a ban would be that, in those areas where hunting takes place, much more use would be made of other methods. The Burns report points out that, in some of those areas, it is difficult to do that. In particular, the report refers to upland areas. Paragraph 61 comes just after the bit that was quoted by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who came to an unexpected stop in the middle of a sentence. The following sentence says:
	In the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used, at least to flush foxes from cover.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alan Beith: I was talking about the hon. Member for Pendle, who did not go on to read that sentence[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Alan Beith: Any serious look at the evidence fails to provide that broad distinction, which could properly be the basis of saying that hunting should be illegal, whereas the other methods of controlling foxes can remain legal.
	Hardly anyone is trying to say that we should not kill foxes. It is generally recognised that there is a need to kill at least some foxes and to control the population. People are not arguing for the elimination of foxes, either. Hunting does not eliminate foxes. It is in the interests of hunts that there should remain some foxes. It is an argument about keeping a level of population that is tolerable in relation to the farming activities upon which the foxes are predators. It is a question of balance.
	One of the things that fascinates me is that the legislation has never been defined in those terms. The legislation has never been defined as an attempt to ban the killing of foxes except in certain circumstances. The legislation has never been defined in terms of attempts to ban cruelty. The word cruelty does not really appear in the Hunting Bill. The legislation concentrates on the use of dogs. When we start to look at it in detail, we discover that many of the other methods of control that would have to be used if we did not have fox hunting also rely on the use of dogs.
	The Minister for Rural Affairs will remember vividly the discussions in Committee. We came to the point where it became clear that the Bill as drafted banned stalking with dogs, and it had not been the intention of the promoters or of the Government that it should. That is the problem. Bills have never been drafted in terms of what are supposedly the objectives of those who want them passed into law: they have never been drafted in terms of killing or in terms of cruelty. It comes down to drafting a Bill in terms of the use of dogs. Then the practical difficulties begin.
	In Committee in the previous Session, we found when we looked at the Bill in detail how difficult it was to get the Bill into the sort of order that would not preclude all sorts of other activities, including other forms of pest control involving other mammalsfor example, ratsso there is a whole area of difficulty about drafting the legislation correctly.
	Technical difficulties cannot be the only reason for taking a view that the legislation should not go forward, because one assumes that a solution can be found to take it forward. What they point to is the inability to define the purpose of the legislation in terms of bringing an end to cruelty or to killing. That is not what it is about. If those who promote this legislation go to their constituency and to the country in general and say, We are going to get a Bill through that will mean that foxes will never be killed or suffer any more, that would be seriously misleading. The question they then have to face is why they are prepared to send people to prison for hunting

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Bill Etherington: When I spoke on this subject approximately 14 months ago, I had high hopes that we would make some progress. Since I came into the House in 1992, we have had numerous debates and free votes on this issue and we are no further on. I issue a friendly warning to my right hon. Friend the Minister. The credibility of the Labour party is on the line over this issueit is as simple as that. I want to spend more time talking about that than the issue of cruelty, anti-hunting, and what is right and what is wrong.
	In a democracy, when a majority of the population want something, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that they get it. If the Government do not do that, and the situation goes on for 10 years, the whole political process becomes denuded. Like many other Members of Parliament, I have had numerous letters along those lines. Some people think that there is an unholy alliance between the Labour party hierarchy and the Countryside Alliance. I should like to think that that is not true. I do not think that it is true, but I well understand that there are people who feel that way.

Lembit �pik: rose

Bill Etherington: I am not giving way; I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman will have his chance.
	When people say that they see no progress being made, and ask, What is the use of the political process?, they have a point. If the Labour party does not get things right, and if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs does not make the right sort of statement after the vote against hunting, is it will affect us badly at the next general election. I do not doubt that for one minute. I hope that people will take note of that.
	I shall say a word or two about the merits or demerits of the case. We have not three, but two options tonight. We can abolish hunting with dogs, which the majority of people want, or we can use one of the other two systems that keep it going. There is no difference between an unregulated system and a licensed system. The licensed system simply appears to give a little more credibility to what is barbaric and unacceptable.
	We are not talking about people being against the culling of foxes. That is as old as mankind. We no longer have wolves and bears in this country, because they were a threat to man's food supply, and they were eliminated. I have no doubt that foxes will be kept down, whatever method is used.
	People wax lyrical about what a wonderful thing the hunt is, but I cannot think of a worse way of destroying an animal. Only two other methods come to mind, and they are similar. One is to boil the fox alive, and the other is to burn it alive. Those are just about the only alternatives that are worse than hunting.
	A small vociferous minority have been able to hold sway for far too long. The vast majority do not want hunting to go on; they want something done about it. It is all right talking about tolerance. Like everyone else, I accept that it is wrong for minorities to be persecuted, but we are not speaking of persecuting minorities. The minority will not be affected in any way, other than losing a certain type of enjoyment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) made it clear that there was a simple alternative. If people want to go on enjoying the pageantry, the uniforms and all the rest of the rigmarole, they can use a drag hunt. It is quite satisfactory. That is the real compromise, not licensing.
	The same arguments in favour of hunting have probably been used for the past 500 years. No doubt the same arguments were put forward when eminent people were trying to abolish the slave tradeOh, you can't interfere with people's rights. People have a right to buy and sell slaves. When we stopped children cleaning chimneys, the opponents no doubt said, Oh, we can't interfere with someone's personal freedom. Those arguments are ludicrous. They have no credibility whatevernone at all.
	A small, extremely influential minority seem to have the Government frightened. That is my impression, and the impression of many members of the public. If, after the vote against hunting tonight, the Government do not do something about it, and if my right hon. Friend the Minister's statement is not to the effect that we will use the Parliament Act if the House of Lords once again proves obstructive, we will lose a tremendous amount of credibility.
	I shall not say much more, as I said all I had to say 14 months ago. Hunting is a barbaric practice which we in the House should be ashamed to say still goes on in this country. Unless we are prepared to do something about it, the rest of the country will hold us in the contempt that we will thoroughly deserve.

Peter Luff: I begin with two words of thanks. First, a word of thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, after my earlier challenge to the Chair about the right to speak of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), my fellow Chelsea supporter. His speech was entertaining but, I am afraid, not particularly convincing.
	I also express my gratitude to the Minister for the evenhanded way in which he has approached the matter so far. I have every confidence in his evenhandedness, despite his earlier record and voting on the issue. I am grateful to him for the great courtesy that he showed to the Middle Way Group at the meeting that we had with him.
	Scylla, as hon. Members will remember, was a horrible six-headed monster who lived on a rock on one side of a narrow strait, and Charybdis was a whirlpool on the other side. When ships passed close to Scylla's rock in order to avoid Charybdis, shethe monsterwould seize and devour the sailors. Aeneas, Jason and Odysseus all had to pass through the narrow strait, and when they passed, they were not engaging in some soggy compromise or refusing to take some braver, nobler path; they were taking the only safe path, a middle way, and one that demanded great courage and skill.
	So it is that I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who spoke earlier, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and an increasing band of adventurers in the House, including the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and, I believe, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw IrrancaDavies). I am proud to count myself among their number as we steer the middle way between the hunt banners of Scylla and the countryside campaigners of Charybdis.
	I shall not rehearse all the arguments in favour of huntingthat has already been done spectacularly well, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)nor will I rehearse all the arguments against, although others have done that less persuasively.
	I shall simply try to demolish eight of the arguments most frequently deployed against our propositiona twofold proposition, remember, that hunting should be licensed and a new offence created of causing unnecessary suffering to a wild mammal. Hunting without a licence issued by the new authority would be a criminal act attracting a fine of up to 5,000. The authority could revoke a licence as a punishment for breach of a tough code of conduct.
	Let us consider the eight argumentsfirst, that to license hunting is to license cruelty. Nonsense. That is just wrong. To ban hunting is to increase the suffering of the fox population, as speech after speech from Opposition Members has made clear. Alternative control methods would be used more frequently. To ban huntingI look at the hon. Member for West Ham as I say this, because he is fond of the line about licensing crueltyis to increase unregulated and uncontrolled killing of mammals. That is the simple truth, which the hon. Gentleman must accept.
	That is a paradox, I know. The Burns report used the word paradox extensively. To ban hunting is to increase animal suffering. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), for whom I usually have such respect, and whom I am glad to see in her place, cannot see that.
	The second argument is that hunting is perfectly all right as it is. It is not. Monitors have filmed activities by hunts that are unacceptable and that should not be occurring under the current Independent Supervisory Authority's rules. In my constituency, hunts have frequently shown insufficient respect for the rights and freedoms of others by trespass, selfish parking and reckless behaviour. Those can be dealt with by licensing, not by a ban.
	The third argument, which was deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) in her opening speech, is that self-regulation is good enough. It is not. Even if all the codes of practice of the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting are perfectI think that some of them are pretty goodself-regulation lacks credibility and effectiveness. It lacks credibility because it is a creature of the hunting world. The wider general public will not accept its independence. It lacks effectiveness because it polices only those who want to be policed by it. It excludes several huntsnot all hunts subscribe to ISAHand it excludes all individual dog owners, the lurcher owners. ISAH does not regulate hunting effectively or comprehensively. It is not a sufficient answer. Only statutory regulation of the kind that we suggest can do that.
	The fourth argument is that hunting must be banned because most people want it banned. We have heard that argument repeatedly, most recently from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) and the hon. Member for West Ham. The claim is not true. There is no longer a majority for a ban among the British general public.
	Opinion poll after opinion poll, and some straw polls such as that conducted by The Sun, show 74 per cent. opposition. Some scientific polls conducted by National Opinion Polls and others show a majority in favour of keeping hunting, either on its current basis or on a regulated basis. There is no longer a majority of the public backing a ban. That fact cannot be disputed. It is demonstrably true. Even those who want a ban could not care less about the issue; they think that there are much more important things that we should be worrying about.

Tony Banks: rose

Peter Luff: I shall give way once briefly to the hon. Member for Newham.

Tony Banks: Incidentally, my constituency is West Ham. A MORI poll in late January showed that an overwhelming 72 per cent. of British people think that foxhunting should be illegal, 80 per cent. that deer hunting should be illegal and 81 per cent. that hare coursing should be illegal. What am I going to do with this?

Peter Luff: I took advice on the hon. Gentleman's constituency and I am sorry that the advice was wrong. I will give him a list of opinion polls showing quite the opposite.

Hugo Swire: I was listening to what the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said. The latest poll, which is more recent than the MORI poll to which he alluded, came out over the weekend. It showed that only 48 per cent. of people support hunting being made a criminal offence, while 49 per cent. said that hunting should be allowed to continue22 per cent. were in favour of it continuing in its present form and 27 per cent. supported a licensing regime. Those are the latest statistics.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions, as I have already said, are meant to be brief.

Peter Luff: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who makes my point for me.
	Most opinion polls show a significant majority against the ban in one form or another. In any event, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, this House cannot be dictated to by opinion polls, whatever they say. [Laughter.] I am sorry that Labour Members find that so funny. We would be reintroducing the death penalty today rather than seeking to ban foxhunting if we had been guided by opinion polls. We must take judgments on what is best and, in doing so, be guided by all the voices that talk to us, such as vets, police officers, animal welfare academics, lawyers and all the other experts who oppose a ban, as do most serious newspapers.
	That leads me to the fifth allegation that the Middle Way Group is a front for the hunting world. It is not; that is a silly attack. I have magazines attacking the Middle Way for being a front for banning hunting. The truth is that we are unpopular with both sides of the argument because we threaten their prejudices. We are not a front for anybody; we have never taken money from any organisation that wants to keep hunting going. That is simply not true. We believe that we should keep hunting going because it is in the animal welfare and human liberty interests of the nation.

Malcolm Savidge: rose

Peter Luff: I am not giving way again, I am running out of time.
	The sixth allegation is that we lack credibility because we have no view on hare coursing. Frankly, I am in this debate for foxhuntingthat is the sport in my constituency that drives me to the middle way position. There is a bit of hare hunting but, as far as I know, no hare coursing. I do not like hare coursing. It is not hunting as I understand it, and although most hares escape the dogs, the deaths are watched by the spectators. That puts it in a different moral category from foxhunting, where most participants never see the death of a fox. The motives are completely different.
	The Middle Way Group believes that our proposals could be applied to hare coursing if the House so chose. Equally, hare coursing could be banned and our proposals applied to other, real forms of hunting. We regard that as a matter for the House, not for us, but I speak for myself when I say that I would vote for a Bill that sought to ban hare coursing and introduce the middle way for other forms of hunting with dogs.
	Our proposals would crack down on illegal hare coursing, which is disliked by everyone in the House. The fines are derisory at present. Illegal hare coursing would automatically be classed as hunting without a licence; it would attract a fine of 5,000, giving the police a real incentive to enforce the law and providing a real deterrent to the illegal hare coursers. We have that unique benefit.
	The seventh accusation is that the Middle Way Group is an attempt to ban hunting by the back doorthe mirror image of my earlier point. We are not. It is true that we have taken on suggestions from hunting interests following the hearings that took place after the last election. Sadly, none of the campaigners for a ban would participate, which was a matter of great personal regret. However, that fear, held by many Countryside Alliance members, is misplaced.
	If the Government bring forward their own middle way proposalI have no knowledge of any deal or discussions in that respectthey must ensure that it could not be used or corrupted by a future Minister or a hunting authority improperly composed to introduce a ban through the back door.
	The eighth accusation is that our proposals are expensive, clumsy and bureaucratic. I have some sympathy for those criticisms, which were made the last time these proposals came before the House. We have radically streamlined our proposals to make them less bureaucratic and costly and easier to implement. I hope that that point will commend itself to the House and that if the Minister is framing proposals along these lines he will guided by the need to be as unbureaucratic as possible.
	For the Middle Way Group, our only resource has been our idea. We have had invaluable help from a couple of individuals who have stuffed envelopes for us. Not for us, however, the expensive advertising campaigns of the League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and others. Not for us the immense resources of the Countryside Alliance. We were not even given a shoestring budgetwe could not afford the shoestring. However, our idea is a compelling one, which is why it is winning.
	We have a recipe that will improve animal welfareuniquely, of these three optionsand protect human liberty. We have been David taking on two Goliaths, and with informed opinion, the public and the media on our side, we have won. Anyone who votes for a ban tonight is voting to make animal welfare worse. To vote to ban anything for no better reason than disapproval is the route to tyranny.

Colin Pickthall: I gently remind the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that after negotiating Scylla and Charybdis, Odysseus and his men were confronted by the sirens. The sirens, he may recall, were beautiful and sang beautifully but were surrounded by piles of bones from previous travellersthe siren voices of compromise, I suggest.
	I support a total ban. The middle way is essentially the same as the status quo. In fact, as has been said, it is the status quo with added bureaucracy. It would continue the acceptance in our law of human cruelty exercised to no necessary end and the acceptance of unnecessary cruelty by sentient creatures. It is ridiculous to say that the activity is cruel but if there is a chit or licence, we can put up with it. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said in her excellent speech, hunting is either right or it is wrong, and that is what we are talking about tonight.
	The House has voted overwhelmingly, twice, to bring an end to unnecessary cruelty to wild mammals. There can seldom in parliamentary history have been an issue on which a large majority of the people, almost the entire Labour party and the parliamentary Labour party have held views that are so much in tune. It is remarkable that that coincidence should not have quickly manifested itself in legislation.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Colin Pickthall: No, I do not have the time.
	I fully support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). We already have a Bill that stood a lot of testing in Committee and there is no reason why on Thursday, or whenever, that Bill should not be re-presented to us, with the Parliament Act following thereafter.
	I want briefly to address some of the arguments, such as they are, that pro-hunters adduce to defend the continuance of their diversion. I could at least respect the argument that simply went, I like hunting animals and, even more, I like seeing them killed. There is an honesty about that, as there is in the confession I like driving fast cars at 100 mph through city centres. Instead, we get a rag bag of quasi-moral assertions that do not bear a great deal of scrutiny.
	The first argument, put by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), is about individual rights. The hunters say that Parliament has no place in interfering with their individual human rights in this matter. Of course it has. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was absolutely correct: if Parliament judges that inflicting cruelty and death on an animal for human pleasure is wrong, Parliament will, if given a chance, stop it. All legislation circumscribes individual freedoms to some degree, whether it is, at one extreme, the freedom to rape or, at another, the freedom to drive at whatever speed we wish. That is why we need Parliament, why we need governance at allto determine these matters.
	We already have laws to prevent cock fighting, bear baiting, bull baiting, badger digging and otter hunting. They all circumscribe human rights. These laws have huge public approval. The public are saying, as we are, that we need to go further and get rid of hunting wild mammals with dogs.
	The second argument is that Parliament has more important things to do. Baroness Mallalieu traipsed out that argument on Today this morning and we have heard it a few times tonight. It does not bear a moment's examination but it is spun heavily by pro-hunting apologists and by the Conservative party. The argument presupposes that Parliament can do only one thing at a time.

Malcolm Savidge: Did my hon. Friend find a slight incongruity in what the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said? Having argued that there were better things for Parliament to do, she then said that if she ever got back into power and there was a ban, the first thing she would do would be to legislate to reverse it?

Colin Pickthall: That is a highly theoretical and unlikely eventuality.

Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Colin Pickthall: I hope that I get some injury time for giving way to the hon. Lady.

Ann Winterton: What I said has been misrepresented. I said that the sovereignty of Parliament was the issue, and that the House can decide in the future, if it so wishes, to undo what this Parliament has done. It is a constitutional issue.

Colin Pickthall: The hon. Lady makes her own argument.
	The contention that Parliament can do only one thing at a time induced a letter from a constituent, who chastised me for trying to get rid of hare coursing while there was still crime on her estate. Crime is still committed on her estate, but that is like my telling her not to clean her windows because her garden needs digging. Parliament deals with dozens of issues at the same time. It is worth remembering that in the five years since Labour came to power, the House of Commons has spent only three days discussing hunting, although 25 of us have spent rather more hours in Committee. I shudder to think how many days we have spent discussing crime, health and the other big issues of the day. Moreover, the parliamentary timetable is hardly overstretched at present, thanks to the timetabling, of which I heartily approve.
	The third argument used is that these are country matters, as Hamlet might have put it. The debate on hunting has successfully been elevated by pro-hunters into a bogus country versus city stand-offI give them credit for thatwhereas polls consistently show a high level of anti-hunting feeling among rural as well as urban citizens. In the letter that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) helpfully put around today, he says that this issue concerns
	very large numbers in the towns.
	I have no means of knowing how many active hunt supporters are urban dwellers who are out for some jolly fun in the countryside at the weekends or on their days off.
	Since coming to this place in 1992, I have taken a consistent interest in ending hare coursing, partly because a major event, the Waterloo cup, takes place in my constituency, partly because the vast majority of my constituents demand that I see to it that it is ended, and partly because it is in my view the most horrible of all blood sports. It is a spectator sport, and the hon. Member for MidWorcestershire (Mr. Luff) described it perfectly. Hares are torn to bits. They are not pests, but that is done to appease a peculiar lust among a largely urban audience for the Waterloo cup. The question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle was never answered. If coursing is done just to turn the hares and to score points, why are the greyhounds not muzzled? The answer to that question never came.
	In recent years, it has been suggested in pro-hunting circles that hare coursing could be offered as a sacrifice to save other blood sports. The spin since last week, which has been confirmed tonight, suggested the same thing, but added stag hunting as another sacrifice. It has been put to me, even by friends, that I should accept that to ensure the end of hare coursing. That is not good enough, and it is not logical. The same cruelty is involved in all blood sports: the cruelty of human intention and the cruelty experienced by the hunted and attacked mammal.
	All hunting of wild mammals with dogs is unacceptable to me and, I believe, to most of my fellow citizens. The killing of an animal is justifiable only if it is done for food or to protect people, other creatures, property or crops. If we have to kill animals, it is incumbent on us to do it as humanely as possible. Killing animals for pleasure is little short of sub-human.
	I began with a comment on human rights, and I shall end with a variant on the same theme. What makes hunt supporters assume that they have the right to do what they wish to animals, and to kill them by whatever means they fancy? Those mammals do not belong to the hunters. If they belong to anyone, it is to all of us: to the community as a whole; to the many, not to the few. They certainly do not belong to the tiny minority who want to destroy them vicariously with dogs.

Richard Page: In view of the fact that many points have already been made, I shall not gallop too heavily over the ground that has been covered. Knowing the paranoia in the House about declaring an interest, I shall begin by declaring that in my youth, when I was younger, fitter, stronger and faster, I went on the odd hunt, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. We had a good burn up across the countryside, and we went over the odd fence and hedge. Catching the fox was secondary: it was just a good day out, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
	A cost-benefit analysis of hunting would show that it is remarkably inefficient and expensive. It is said that it is enjoyed by people from all walks of life, but I have to say that it leans towards the more wealthy rather than towards the poor.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Page: No.
	I shall not take up the religious-spiritual argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but I agree with him that there is a fairly high jealousy quotient. That is why so many Labour Members are against the activity.
	As a number of hon. Members have said, hunting is a matter of the quick and the dead. The fox is either caught or it gets away: there is no halfway house. A constituent wrote to me last week arguing that I should vote against hunting and get it abolished, because a cull of foxes could be achieved by the painless, quick rifle shot. As someone who has shot in most disciplines, I can tell the House that when one is lying on one's stomach in Bisley with a sling round one's arm to hold the rifle steady, it is hard enough to hit the target on the right spot even when it is obligingly staying still. Foxes do not stay still. They move with remarkable rapidity. No shot can achieve the clean, quick painless kill.
	I endorse what the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said about other methods of killing foxes. I do not know whether any hon. Members have seen snares or poison being used. Shooting, snaring and poisoning do not measure up to the clean sport of hunting in which the fox is either dead or alive.
	It is interesting that, as more and more people get to know exactly what is involved in this issue, the percentage wanting to keep hunting is going up and up. This debate has shown that certain hon. Members need to have their education broadened. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is not present at the moment, but he asked why hunting does not take place all year round. It is quite simple. Foxes do not know that they should not go into growing crops. If we could train them not to go into growing crops, we could hunt all year round, but farmers get upset about foxes going into growing crops, and that is why there is a hunting season. People can shoot all year round, but hunting takes place only at certain times of the year.
	I must make another announcement. I have the privilege of being the joint chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock committee. It is a position of immense influence and power, and one that I thoroughly enjoy.
	There have been many comments about the wide range of associated activities that are involved in and depend on hunting. One such is point-to-point training, which is absolutely vital for national hunt rules and racing. Anyone who looked down the Cheltenham race card last week would have seen the names of many horses that came into national hunt racing through the point-to-point route. I shall not labour the point, but getting rid of hunting would mean getting rid of point-to-pointing and reducing the number of horses that take part in national hunt racing. People who suggest that drag hunting would provide an alternative are completely and utterly wrong.
	We all read in the media over the weekend about the idea of introducing some form of licensing, and I see the sticky fingers of No. 10 all over those comments. I have no objection to licensingit would be a good thing. We just heard about certain practices that are engaged in by certain of the hunts. Those practices should be banned and the law should be able to take action against the hunts that use them.
	If, as I hope, we take the licensing route, the basic terms of the licence must be spelled out in primary legislation, not introduced by regulations. Right hon. and hon. Members who experienced the progress of the Child Support Agency legislation will remember that when we were asked to vote for a Bill to chase parents who were not fulfilling their obligations towards their children we all said yes and it went through without a ripple. But when we saw the regulations that emerged and the way in which the CSA was operating I, for one, held my head between my hands. My surgery and local advice centres, like those of every other Member of Parliament, were full of people complaining about the operation of the CSA. It is much better now, but when it was first introduced it was a nightmare. I therefore hope that if the licensing route is chosen, we will see the basic terms of the licence in primary legislation or, at least, be given an idea of what it will entail, so that we can consider it when the Bill passes through the House.
	The licensing route is the right one to take. Let us put this matter to bed, get it off the Floor of the House and start to concentrate on matters that are far more important to the country, such as the national health service, schools, transport and housing. Let us get on with the things that matter.

Anthony D Wright: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on hunting. It is the first time that I have done so, although the subject has been discussed on the Floor of the House on two previous occasions.
	I give my support to all hon. Members who have spoken in favour of a total ban on hunting with dogs and reiterate the point that although there are three options for us to vote on, we really have only two choicesin favour of hunting with dogs or opposed to hunting with dogs. I do not accept that licensing or regulating hunting in any way is acceptablethe status quo may as well prevail.
	I have no hunts in my constituency, but I do have foxes. I sometimes see them near my house in the early hours of the morning or near the marshes late at night when returning from Westminster to Great Yarmouth. I have also seen many foxes lying dead on the road or by the side of the road having been killed by vehicles. That saddens me, but nothing saddens me more than contemplating an animal being chased by a pack of hounds accompanied by people on horseback.
	As leader of my local authority, I had the unenviable job of having to give permission for a fox to be shot by a marksman. I shall explain the circumstances. In the nesting season, Great Yarmouth has one of the largest tern colonies in the United Kingdom on an area of marram on our north beach. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds fences it off to stop people accidentally treading on a nest or frightening the birds away, and an RSPB warden oversees the area. Approximately seven years ago, the warden informed me of the destruction of a substantial number of terns' eggs by an animal. Evidence suggested that it was a fox that had been sighted more than once.
	The solutions available were to trap or shoot the animal. I opposed the latter, but on further discussion it became clear that the fox was destroying a number of eggs and something had to be done urgently. No one dared suggest that a hunt should enter the area. Given the RSPB's predicament, I reluctantly gave permission for a marksman to shoot the fox. Fortunately, it never returned; perhaps it had a sixth sense.
	There will always be times when we agree that a fox may have to be humanely killed. Even an animal lover like me understands that. However, I shall never understand the apparent enjoyment that the hunter derives from chasing an animal to exhaustion.
	To my knowledge, there is no hare coursing in my constituency; the nearest hare coursers are the Waveney Harriers. Again, I must admit that I have not been to a hare coursing meeting, but I learned enough through talking to individuals who have witnessed the activity at first hand. I have also seen the usual video footage.
	In the past century, hare numbers have declined dramatically, largely because of the advent of intensive agriculture methods. The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales chaired by Lord Burns heard evidence for and against the practices that we are considering. It concluded that
	there is little or no need to control overall hare numbers.
	Indeed, brown hares are the subject of a biodiversity action plan that aims to maintain and expand their population so that numbers double by 2010. Lord Burns also found that
	hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes.
	In hare hunting, packs of beagles are used to chase hares to the point of exhaustion. The hunting season runs from September to March after some litters of leverets have been born. That means that some hunted females leave orphaned and dependent young. A single hare is chased until dogs kill it or it escapes. Hunted hares are beaten not by speed but by the stamina of dogs. The hare is worn down by a protracted chase, which provides more satisfaction for the followers, until it is simply overwhelmed by the hounds and killed.
	Hunted hares are reluctant to leave familiar territory and will run in a large circle until worn down, caught and killed. The Burns inquiry concluded:
	This experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.
	Coursing enthusiasts claim that when a hare is caught, it dies instantaneously from the bite of one dog. However, post mortem reports show that hares can die a gruesome and painful death as they are savaged by the dogs.

James Gray: If, as the hon. Gentleman claims, the carcase is ripped to pieces by the dogs, how is it there for the post mortem?

Anthony D Wright: Those carrying out the post mortem can tell that the hare has been stretched between two animals and killed by horrendous methods.
	After the 2001 Millennium cup coursing event, the RSPCA arranged for the carcases of five of the hares killed in the competition to be examined by an independent vet. After the post mortem, the vet concluded that none had died instantly from a bite. All had suffered injuries before being retrieved from the dogs. From 1977-79, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare carried out 53 post mortems on coursed hares. None had been killed by a bite to the neck and several had to be killed by the handlers when they were retrieved from the dogs.
	The Burns committee commissioned research into how hares are killed during coursing. It showed that only one of 12 coursed hares was definitely killed by the dogs. Of the remaining 11, five were killed only when the picker-up arrived and broke their necks, and in six cases the cause of death was uncertain. The committee concluded:
	It is clear, moreover, that, if the dog or dogs catch the hare, they do not always kill it quickly.
	I have been made aware of threats against farmers and landowners who have attempted to prevent illegal hare coursing on their properties. Resentment of the landowner's attitude has been made clear, even to the extent of physical threats. Illegal hare coursing is widely condemned, but the only difference between legal and illegal coursing is the issue of the landowner's permissionthe cruelty is the same. The Hunting Bill would provide a real means for the police to address illegal coursing and would deal with the issue of permission.
	Finally, I want to turn to the debate that will be held in the other place tomorrow. I understand that there will be a report to this place after debates and votes have taken place in both Houses. The Government's view will be based on those responses.
	We are currently considering the second phase of House of Lords reform. The Select Committee on Public Administration, on which I serve, recently examined proposals for that reform and took evidence. Nearly everybody commented on the need to protect the pre-eminence of the House of Commons, mainly because we are accountable to our electorate, but in this instance the pre-eminence of this place is contested because of the suggestion that the views of both Houses will be taken on board.
	This is the third time that we have debated the ban on hunting. Furthermore, it has been mentioned twice in the Labour manifesto. The will of the people of the country is clear; the will of the elected Chamber is clear, so let us be clear that nothing less than a programme for the abolition of hunting with dogs will be acceptable when the Leader of the House makes his statement. I hope that that will lead to the reintroduction of the Hunting Bill.

Roger Gale: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I shall be brief.
	The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and I have a couple of things in common. She is in a minority on her side of the House, and I am in a minority on my side. I have great respect for what she said and for her right to say it. I do not share her views, although I agree with her that the House has more important things to discuss.
	The House has more important animal welfare issues to discuss. Currently, the United Kingdom imports thousands of chickens, thousands of pieces of pigmeat and tonnes of veal bred throughout Europe and beyond in conditions that we would not allow in this country. That is being done to the detriment of our farming community, so when we talk in a holier than thou way about foxhunting and about animal welfare we should remember that there are priorities. I care passionately about the issue, but when it is set beside the tens of thousands of other animals that suffer and about which Parliament and the Government are doing nothing, a few hundred foxes almost pale into insignificancealmost, but not for me.
	This charade tonight is a disgrace. This debate is a fig leaf, designed to cover the embarrassment of a rotten Prime Minister who has broken a promise. This Prime Minister has a tendency to blame the last Government for everything. Well, it was under the last Government that this Prime Minister promised on television that he would end the practice of hunting wild mammals with hounds. This Prime Minister has forgotten that he was also the Prime Minister in that last Government.
	The House of Commons has debated this issue under the Labour Government many times before and has made its decision plain. Let us not try to pretendas the Minister for Rural Affairs did when he introduced the debate, in measured termsthat this is the Labour Government honouring a manifesto promise. That promise was broken by the Prime Minister in the last Parliament.
	This debate is irrelevant. When we vote at 10 o'clock, most Members will vote against option 1; most Members will vote against option 2; and most Members willas they have done before, and I will be with themvote for a complete ban, because one cannot be a little bit pregnant. One cannot be not very cruel to foxes. One either believes that there must be a ban or that hunting is in order.
	I respect the viewswhich I do not shareof my hon. Friends who believe that somehow the 6 per cent., 7 per cent., or, being generous, 10 per cent. of foxes killed by the hunt is a form of pest control, but it has already been pointed out that more foxes are killed on the roads. Foxes are killed in my North Thanet constituency. North Thanet does not have a hunt. The population lives on the coastal strip, but the overwhelming acreage of my constituency is rural and most of it is farmed.
	There is no hunt in Thanet, nor is there a fox problem. There is no Tooting hunt, no Wandsworth hunt and no Clapham hunt, but we can see foxes on their streets at night. If we want to control vermin we should work out how to deal with that problem. The idea that foxhunting controls the fox population is arrant nonsense.
	The debate is a fig leaf. It is a way of trying to get a discredited Prime Minister off the hook. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said that the credibility of the Labour party is on the line. Yes, it isbecause the Labour party has failed on health, failed on education, failed on transport and failed on animal welfare, on which it has delivered none of the promises it made before both the previous elections. The Government's record on animal welfare is pitiful. This issue should have been put to bed under the last Labour Government. This Government should have the guts to do the job and finish it once and for all.

Nick Palmer: This debate reminds me of what the American baseball coach said: it is dj vu all over again. Most of us have been here before and made similar arguments. There are some new elements, however, and I shall concentrate on them. I shall briefly summarise the central case that has been discussed and then consider compromise.
	Most Members would agree on some basic principles. First, we should not frivolously ban sports merely because we do not like them. For instance, I would not ban boxing. I think it a degrading sport and I am against it, but the participants consent to it so it is not appropriate to make it a criminal activity.
	Secondly, most Members would agree that if a practice causes real distress to animals merely for the sake of sport, it is not frivolous to want to ban it. I refer to distress rather than to cruelty, because I do not think that most people who take part in hunts are motivated by cruelty in the sense of wishing to cause pain. They are motivated by a wish to enjoy themselves, and they accept that, as a by-product, the animals will be caused some distress. But we tie ourselves in knots if we talk about cruelty. I am interested not in the motivations of the riders but in the effect on the animals.
	Thirdly, I believe that most hon. Members would accept that, if genuine distress is being inflicted, it is not right to do so merely for the sake of generating employment; otherwise a great many activities would be legal that are not legal today, and we would be horrified if they became legal.

Henry Bellingham: Such as?

Nick Palmer: Such as bear baiting and torture. No doubt, the manufacturers of torture equipment would be happy to supply it.
	The opponents of a ban today have primarily concentrated on the argument that the alternatives would be worse. I draw their attention to three points. First, the Burns report, which we all happily cite when we agree with it, makes it clear that the Burns committee considered lamping an adequate alternative in most circumstances, with probably fewer welfare implications, and it makes an exception for uplands, where it thinks gun packs are necessary; I shall return to that issue.
	Secondly, as several hon. Members have said, hunting is, in fact, only responsible for the deaths of 6, 7 or 8 per cent. of foxes. In all areas outside the Welsh uplands, hunting is not a serious contributor to the control of fox numbers, and the House will not be taken seriously if it argues otherwise; it is simply not the case. Thirdly, I note that the supporters of hunting have quietly tossed aside the arguments for coursing and stag hunting because, of course, neither hares nor stags are generally considered pests that need to be controlled. One gets the impression that, like the proverbial Cossacks being pursued by wolves, they are chucking coursing over the back of the troika in the hope of satisfying those in pursuit.

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Palmer: No, I had better concentrate on the time.
	The bottom line for me is the chase. Some hon. Members focus particularly on the kill, which I find distressing as well. We have to accept that there will be occasions when the kill is swift and occasions when it is less swift, and it will be particularly horrible in those cases. But for every fox killed by a hunt, a number of others will be chased and caused considerable, lengthy distress. Indeed, the hunts make a point of stressing that many foxes escape, especially the healthier ones. I spoke to a supporter the other day and he said that, in 40 years of hunting, he had seen only two foxes killed. If we were trying to deal with insect pests and succeeded in deterring one wasp every 20 years, we would not feel that we were using a very effective deterrent.

James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Palmer: No, I am sorry, but I will not.
	The reality is that we are accepting something that is essentially a sport based on terror and painful deaths for animals. We hear about compromise, and I have to say that I am an inveterate compromiser. If I had been a Member of the House at the time of William Wilberforce, I might have been seriously tempted by a new deal for slavesslavery with a human face. I can understand the temptation to split the difference, not to go too far and to find somewhere in the middle. However, there is a difficulty with the proposed compromiseeither people can chase animals with dogs, or they cannot. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and I am grateful to him for sticking the debate out this long to hear my contribution.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nick Palmer: I had better not give way, because I have already said I would not.
	By far the most sensible alternative for all hon. Members is to deal with the issue by simply reintroducing the previous Bill and finishing it in this Session. However, I have the sneaking feeling that the Minister may have a different view, and I want to give him some input on the kind of compromise that would tempt me. If the Government believe that there are areas where foxes are a serious pestperhaps in the Welsh uplandslet them authorise gamekeepers to conduct culls when necessary. Further, if they think that it is sometimes necessary to flush out foxes with dogs in upland areas, as suggested by the Burns report, I can reluctantly accept that, as we did in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster).
	My bottom line is this: a compromise that involves the continued existence of organised pursuit across the countryside and of causing terror and death through a chase is not a compromise. I would vote against it regardless of the number of lines on the Whip and I believe that the majority of hon. Members feel the same way. If we wish to dispose of the problem, as the Government have rightly said, ultimately we shall have to push through the same Bill as we put through last year.

Simon Thomas: Plaid Cymru did not want a free vote tonight. We hoped that our amendment would be chosen so that we could have a whipped vote on the constitutional relationship between the National Assembly and this place as regards hunting and agriculture. Although the Assembly was not granted all powers over animal health, significant powers were devolved to it to deal with agricultural matters, and it is right that it should decide the matter in Wales.
	The National Assembly voted to ban hunting. It undertook its own study of the effect of the different options on Wales. I hope that whatever happens, the Minister will see fit to consult the National Assembly and consider the evidence that its Agriculture and Rural Development Committee took on hunting in Wales.
	The debate has been good and some contributions have been most useful. I found myself agreeing with much of what hon. Members on both sides of the argument have said. In particular, I agreed with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she said that it was right for the House to address and legislate on the subject if it thinks it wise to do so, although the idea of whether something is wise raises problems of its own.
	I also feel strongly that we are discussing a compromise. Not even the ban in the previous Bill would have led to the complete cessation of the killing of wild mammals. It simply dealt with killing wild mammals in certain way. Rats, for example, were not included. I do not know what the difference is between Basil Brush and Roland Rat, but the Bill certainly made such a distinction.
	I also think that the timing is nakedly cynical. The Government are in trouble, whether it is Tony Blair cosying up to Italian fascists in Barcelona

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language when he addresses Members of the House.

Simon Thomas: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course the word fascist is in order, but the Prime Minister's name is not.
	So whether it is that problem or the Prime Minister's relationship with Mr. Mittal, the purpose of the Bill is to reignite the socialism on the Labour Benches. They are socialist, red in tooth and claw, and nothing else is behind the Bill's timing. I know that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) wants it to go through no matter what, but he must recognise that that is why it has been introduced now.
	In the Animal Health Bill the Government created massive powers to slaughter animals because they were not prepared to face the reality of vaccinating against foot and mouth, so it ill behoves them and those Back Benchers who supported themI certainly did notto talk about animal cruelty and animal slaughter. For me there are only two absolute positions: either we accept a vegan's point of view and reject the use of animals for human purposes, or we accept that we use, eat and conserve animals, both wild and domesticated. I am firmly in the second camp and I have only to look at all right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber to know that the vast majority are also in that camp. I know that not from their faces or speeches, but from their footwear.
	The question is the degree to which we deal with the problem. There is no doubt that we will continue to kill foxes no matter what form the Bill takes. The problem is how we do that. On considering that, my first principle is that we cannot allow and legislate for gratuitous cruelty, which undeniably happens in some hunts and in some forms of shooting and fishing. However, hunting is in an anomalous position. Without licensing, the hunt can go at it and hunt in any area that it wants, including places where it would be difficult even to stage a simple party. Hunting therefore needs a licensing and regulatory scheme.
	Secondly, we have to accept that the countryside is managed, and in England and Wales there is no real wilderness. The fox is the top predator in the countrysidethere is no predator of the fox apart from man. In Wales, we have 5 per cent. of the population and 25 per cent. of the nation's sheep; indeed, we have 5 per cent. of the total number of sheep in Europe. The situation in Wales is different from England's, and that has been recognised in the Burns report and in the comments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).
	The Burns report found that terriers and hounds were involved in at least 70 per cent. of fox culling in Wales, which is very different from the 7 or 8 per cent. quoted by other hon. Members. The report concluded that in areas dependent on sheep rearing and game management there is no real alternative to using dogs for flushing out. The topography and afforestation of upland Wales mean that that needs to be taken into consideration.
	The third principle is that we must legislate equitably. This is a central moral question about our approach to animal welfare in the House. Why should the hunting of foxes be banned, but not the hunting of rats, or shooting, fishing, vivisection and slaughter? There are moral gradations here and no moral absolutes. Of course, it is for the House to gauge where that moral decision lies, and we must do so in consultation with our electorate. However, I would argue strongly that it is hypocritical to say that foxhunting with hounds is in some way morally less acceptable than shooting, fishing or hunting other animals with dogs.
	There is no moral gradation there, so we must ask why people are so upset about hunting foxes with hounds. If it does not stem from a class mistakecertainly in the Welsh contextI do not know where it comes from. I accept that there are Members who firmly oppose the killing of animals in the wild, full stop. However, the vast majority of Members are motivated by other thoughts, and there is no moral certainty in that.
	There is, however, public distrust and disquiet about practices such as hare coursing. I am open-minded, but I cannot see an ecological or conservationist reason for hare coursing. I have similar feelings about stag hunting, although there may be a conservationist argument to be made. Certainly, there is an ecological reason to catch mink in the way that we hunt foxes.
	There is disquiet also about aspects of hunting. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw IrrancaDavies) is a new Member of the House, but I understand that his position on this matter has not changed since he stood as a candidate in Brecon and Radnor, and he is to be congratulated on that. There are aspects of hunting that we need to address in legislation. It is not right that animal cruelty perpetrated by hunts should be accepted under the law as it stands. We have to bring those practices within the ambit of the law.
	For me, there are two unresolved issues. We have to ensure that matters of welfare and any cruelty practised by hunts are examined openly, and that there is accountability for them. In my experience, the independent authority on hunting is not sufficiently powerful or interested to deal with the matter. We need a supervisory authority on hunting to be set up on a statutory footing.
	The second unresolved issue is conservation. I have heard nothing yet that convinces me that, in upland areas at least, hunting can be replaced by equally useful tools. I am open-minded about that too, but I have not been convinced.
	The social aspect of hunting is important and cannot be ignored. For me, however, it is not in itself sufficient to justify the continuation of hunting. It has to be considered alongside conservation and welfare aspects. Nevertheless, the Government, who are responsible for the countryside as well as the towns, should remember that, post foot and mouth, the hunting fraternity, in all its manifestations, provides an essential social glue.
	In conclusion, I think that the killing of animals and cruelty to them merely for sport are not justifiable. The killing of animals for human use, with safeguards that change from generation to generation and on which this House decides, is acceptable, as long as those decisions are made openly and in consultation with the electorate. Finally, it is acceptable to kill or control wild animals for the maintenance of the countryside and its population and for reasons of biodiversity and sustainable agriculture. In that context, the continuation of hunting with hounds under a statutory licensed authority is acceptable to me and, I think, to the majority of my electorate.
	Hunting should therefore be allowed: first, if it can be shown that the fox population needs to be controlled; secondly, if it can be shown that the countryside environment is maintained or improved by that method; thirdly, if deliberate acts of cruelty or interference in the hunt are outlawed. Those are the three principles that should underpin any future hunting in this country, and they must be achieved by a statutory hunting authority.

Ian Cawsey: I shall make a few brief comments on hunting with dogsalthough when the Government announced that we would have three votes this evening, I thought that perhaps we did not need a debate at all, but could go straight to the votes, because I shall be surprised if, at the end of the debate, any hon. Members have changed their views since they came into the Chamber. Nevertheless, as we have this opportunity it is important to say what we feel on the subject.
	I want to talk about three issuesthe effectiveness and welfare aspects of hunting with dogs; public opinion and its merits or otherwise; and the liberty argument that several hon. Members have mentioned. I was delighted to listen earlier in the debate to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), whom I followed as chair of the all-party animal welfare group. As he said, there are lots of other animal welfare issues for us to get stuck into, so I hope that the Government will put this matter behind us, so that the Members in all parts of the House who share a great interest in animal welfare can begin to consider some of those other issues.
	I must take up one small issue with the hon. Gentleman, however, because he said that the Government had done nothing for animal welfare since they came to power. It was the late Alan Clark who said that the Labour Government had done more for animal welfare in their first 18 months in office than the Conservative Government had done in 18 years, and I rest my case on his words, not mine. None the less, there is much more to be done.
	I live in, and represent, the countryside. I have spoken to many people in my constituency about the rights and wrongs of hunting with dogs and the necessity, or otherwise, of a ban. We have heard it said tonight that hunting is a seasonal activity, and many hon. Members, particularly if they are in favour of hunting, have said that it is the lesser of the evilsthat foxes have to be killed somehow, and all the other methods are worse than hunting.
	I do not agree, partly because I have seen many people who work in and manage the countryside and look after the stewardship of various species, and in my experience most people who use other methods do not act out of cruelty; they have an interest in protecting and enhancing the countryside that we all enjoy and love.
	I think that everybody has acknowledged that, in controlling foxes, hunting is hardly used as a method at all. To say that other ways of killing foxes, such as shooting, are crueller is to accuse all those people who work in the countryside of being more cruel than they need to be. In all the time that I have lived in and represented the countryside, I have seen no evidence that those people have that view.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, accept what Burns saidthat in some parts of the United Kingdom hunting is regarded as the most effective means of controlling fox numbers. He has already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that although the proportion might be 6 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole, hunting accounts for 60 to 70 per cent. of the control methods in areas such as ours.

Ian Cawsey: There are issues involving gun packs and flushing out that I would be the first to acknowledge; indeed, I am on record as saying that in the past. However, in general terms it is on the record that shooting is used more by the people who work in the countrysideand they do not do it because they want to be cruel.
	The only person who has offered an argument against that is the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who rightly pointed out that hunting with dogs is seasonal because at certain times of the year hunts cannot go through the growing crops. He then rather gave that argument away by saying that although people can hunt with dogs only in certain seasons, they can shoot all the year round.
	If the point at issue were cruelty, logic would say that people had to hunt with dogs in the appropriate season, and would be allowed to shoot only when it was not possible to hunt with dogs. However, that is not the arrangementbecause the alternatives are not more cruel. I once visited an RSPCA hospital in Norfolk. I spoke to the vets working there, and asked them how many times they had had to treat a fox that had been brought in with a shooting injury. The answer from a vet who had worked there for many years was, Not once. When I asked him why, he said, You can take it from me that when the fox is shot in the countryside by somebody trained, it is dead. Hon. Members shake their heads, but I return to my initial point: if they are saying that that is not true, they are accusing people who live and work in the countryside, and who manage it, of engaging in more cruelty than is necessary to do their job. I simply say that, in my experience, I have not seen that.

Gregory Barker: rose

James Paice: rose

Ian Cawsey: I shall give way to the hon. Member for SouthEast Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who used to be on the Front Bench.

James Paice: I am still a Front-Bench spokesman, but not on this occasion. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise the fallacy of his argument about foxes being taken into animal hospitals? The simple fact is that if a fox has been wounded with a gun, a rifle or a shotgun, it will not be readily visible for somebody to pick up and take in. It will either go to ground or hide under brambles or whatever, where it will lie until it dies, probably of gangrene. It will not be found in a place where someone will pick it up and take it to be treated.

Ian Cawsey: I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman who is nearly on the Front Bench tonightand who, I understand, usually still isbut that would also apply to lots of other animals that get injured in the countryside. However, one would think that, perhaps once in those many years, someone at that RSPCA hospital would have come across a fox in that situation. The simple truth is that no one ever has. I therefore do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument.
	Furthermore, I do not accept the argument that dogs kill a mammal in the most humane waythe single nip on the back of the neck argument. Every single yearI accept that this is not the intention of those who huntthere are instances of hunts attacking other prey or quarry. It might be people walking the dog[Hon. Members: No, they don't.] Opposition Members are saying that they do not, but I can give them as many examples as they like of domestic pets that have had to be taken to the vet because they have been attacked by a hunt. As a result, those animals have had to be treated. There are two remarkable things about that. First, their injuries do not tend to be in the neck areathey tend to be in the hind legs or the underbelly. Secondlywe should remember that the hunt has to separate the dogs from the quarrythey are still alive. If the hunt is such a wonderful, quick way of killing mammals, why do we find, every year, examples of animals that survive the process and can be treated and returned to their owners? It is complete rubbish.
	A lot has been said about public opinion this evening. I do not believe, like many Opposition Members, that Governments should legislate purely on the basis of opinion polls. What is remarkable, however, is that public opinion hardly moves. I suspect that we shall see a similar lack of movement in this place this evening. When my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster)who is in his place nowintroduced his private Member's Bill in 1997, a MORI poll showed that 71 per cent. of the electorate wanted hunting with dogs to be banned. The latest poll shows that 72 per cent. of the population want a ban. There is very little change in that. Similarly, a recent NOP poll showed the figure as 67 per cent. I understand that Opposition Members are quoting a telephone poll in The Sun, which shows 76 per cent.

Peter Luff: A poll in The Sun was quoted, which I think showed a 74 per cent. result. However, we are quoting scientific opinion polls collected by NOP that show a clear majority against a ban.

Ian Cawsey: I have not seen a single poll that has reached that result in which the question has not been geared one way. When the question is open, there is a clear result in favour of a ban. Just before the last general election, a phone poll found that 80 per cent. of people were going to vote Conservative, but that did not happen in reality.

Mike Wood: They believed that as well.

Ian Cawsey: As my hon. Friend says, the Opposition believed that as well. So we must therefore be cautious about polls that are unbalanced.
	I shall finish my speech by considering the issue of liberty. I spoke in the previous debate on this subject when I told the House that I had attended the New Forest drag hunt. When I got there, like many other people, I was subjected to a chap shoving a camera in my face. He took photographs of me and everyone else who attended the hunt. When I asked the people who had converted the old New Forest hunt into a drag hunt why that was happening, I was told, They are taking photographs to show around the pub tonight so that everyone can see who is letting the side down. That is an issue of liberty.
	I also referred to the hunt that came through the playground of a school and to a village in Essex where the villagers had held a poll establishing that they did not want it. The hunt, however, continued to go through the village and, when the leader of the hunt was questioned by the press, he asked, What's that got to do with the people of the village? Why have they got any say? That is the sort of libertarian issue the debate is all about. It is not about people's right to hunt, because one cannot control a hunt. It will follow the quarry and go wherever the quarry goes. Because of that, other people's liberty is affected.
	Those who take a libertarian view about how people live in the countryside should vote for a ban. That is the only way of achieving their aim. The other proposals are a cop-out and should be defeated in the Lobbies, as I am confident they will be this evening.

James Paice: I have listened to contributions from both sides and, unlike one speaker, I do not think that this has been a particularly good debate. I have been saddened by the superficiality of the arguments madeand not just by those who want to ban hunting.
	The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) clearly does not understand hunting. I accept that everyone is entitled to reach their own conclusions, but it was clear from his speech that he does not know very much about hunting. It behoves hon. Members to acquaint themselves with all the facts, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) did by going to see the Thurlow hunt. I do not know whether it met in my constituency or one of the neighbouring ones, but I would have been happy for her to visit my constituency. That was an example of someone trying to find out what is going on.
	When the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) said that all his information about coursing came from the Waveney Harriers, he underlined my point about ignorance. Harriers on horseback hunt hares with packs of hounds.

Anthony D Wright: As a matter of clarification, I never said that I received all my information from the Waveney Harriers. I received it from several other individuals who had been involved in hare coursing. I also received information from video footage.

James Paice: If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I shall, of course, withdraw my remarks. However, I urge him to read Hansard, because that was not the impression that he gave to me or to any of my hon. Friends.
	Some of the arguments that have been advanced are clearly spurious. We have heard about animals being ripped to pieces. They sometimes are but, as the Burns report made clear, that is after they are dead, so that argument cannot be used against hunting. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has clearly put to bed the nonsensical figure of 5 per cent. In many parts of the country, the figure is much higher than that.
	I want to speak about the two central issues. The first is cruelty and the second is the rights and wrongs of people participating in acts that others may perceive as cruel. The phrase
	seriously compromises the welfare of the fox
	appears several times in Burns, and I suspect that Lord Burns wishes that he had not used it. It has been so misquoted. However, he is adamanthe said this in the debate in the other placethat the phrase should not be taken to imply that hunting is cruel; and, nor for that matter, should it be taken to mean that hunting is not cruel. It was not a comment on the cruelty of hunting, even though some people have proclaimed that it should be seen as such.
	Does the animal that is pursued feel distress during the chase part of the hunt? There is no doubt that there is physical distress or exhaustion, but there is a big question mark as to whether that is over and above that which occurs regularly in nature. When Professor Bateson produced a report on deer hunting, his peers who examined it quickly took issue with his conclusions. Even he has backed away from the finding in the report.
	A further issue is whether pursuit causes the animal any mental distress. There is no evidence either way, but it is wrong of people to adopt the anthropomorphic approach and say, Well, how would you like it? Animals do not have the same perceptions, sense of reasoning and, perhaps, the premonition of pain or death as humans; there is no evidence whatever that that is the case. Indeed, if they had all those abilities, they would no longer be the animals that they are. Anyone who knows about animalsanyone who keeps dogs or other petsknows that an animal does not have any conception from its experience of something of what will happen next. A dog is trained by repetition; most animals are taught by being trained repetitively, which is how they learn the consequences of individual actions.
	The process of death may sound like a harsh term, but it is the only way I can describe it. In stag hunting, the process of death is by shooting, so death is instant and not drawn-out; the same is true of hinds. A number of Members have spoken about coursing; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was rightly reported as saying that the objective is not to catch the hare; coursing is a test between two greyhounds. Only one in seven or eight hares is caught, but I am the first to accept that when a hare is caught, it is a distressing sight, and obviously dreadful for the hare. The question of muzzling was raised; I, too, have asked why the hounds cannot be muzzled. I have been told that hares are fragile animals; trials with muzzling in Ireland have shown that if hounds cannot catch the hare, they bang it hard with their muzzles; the hare suffers internal haemorrhaging, goes away and still dies. That is the reason I have been given for muzzling being unacceptable.
	With mink, of course, there is a huge size difference; for them, death is instant. Foxhunting, however, dominates the debate; death, according to Burns and every other study, if not instantaneous, takes only a few seconds. There is clear evidence that alternatives are equally likely or, in some cases, more likely, to cause a lot of pain in the process of death.
	Another issue is whether people enjoy what is described as inflicting cruelty. If that were so, a lot of people following hunts would be extremely disappointed. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) spoke about someone seeing only two foxes killed in 40 years of hunting, and took that to mean that only two had been killed. I suspect, however, that he is wrong; few people following a hunt see the kill. The field is usually a couple of hundred yards or more behind, and the only person up with the hounds is the huntsman. Anybody who goes hunting to enjoy the spectacle of a fox being killed by hounds will be sorely disappointed. The issue is not relevant to stag hunting, as the animals are shot; with hare coursing, inflicting cruelty is not the purpose.
	If there is an argument about cruelty, fishing must come into the frame. I know that this is not a debate about fishing, so I shall not test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is ample evidence that fish feel pain and respond to it. A report prepared for the RSPCA makes the point that
	it can be argued that the pain fish feel as a result of injury is likely to be just as important in their own way as human pain is to humans.
	I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was plain wrong; the vast majority of people who fish do not do so for food. In coarse fishing, with the exception of a few pike and eels, almost all fish are returned to the water. Given the water most of them come from, frankly no one would want to eat them anyway. In game fishing, catches of trout and salmon are consumed, but the bulk of fish is put back in the water. I would argue strongly that that is just as cruel as any form of hunting with dogs, if not more so, as there is no aim of control.
	The debate has dealt with many issues, but I hope that those hon. Members who are prepared to stop and think for a moment before they walk into the Lobby in a few minutes' time will consider the consequences of passing legislation that would criminalise a small minority that is as significant as many others in this country. Every minority has a right to be heard and, wherever possible, understood. Such legislation would not lead to a net reduction in pain or distress to animals; in many ways, a great deal of inconvenience and disruption would be caused to individual lives.
	The issue is: should this House make a moral judgment on whether it is right for people to enjoy what some perceive as inflicting pain on animals? I believe that that judgment should be made by individuals, according to what is right for their soul. It is not a judgment for this House, and that is why I shall resistas I have always doneany attempt by it to stop people hunting with hounds.

Ian Gibson: In the past few years, the paper by Professor Bateson and Dr. Bradshawentitled Physiological effects of hunting red deerhas been a significant feature in debates in this place, in Committee and elsewhere on hunting with dogs. Following its publication, vitriolic attacks were made on Professor Bateson. Accusations were made concerning his competence, integrity and powers of manipulation; he was even accused of slanting his report of April 1997, thereby precipitating the National Trust's decision to ban stag hunting on its land. However, after taking evidence from his opponents, it reaffirmed that decision. After listening to both sides of the argument, the Forestry Commission independently reached the same conclusion.
	In his letter to me last week, Patrick Batesonwho is still alive and well and has not recantedsaid that, despite attempts to discredit him, he still agrees with what he wrote in 1997. He showed that, according to the measurement of various hormones, hunting deer with hounds led to high levels of stress. If they were chased over 10 km, which is no mean distance, they had no fuel leftI shall not use technical termsand were unable to move quickly because their muscles had gone. He pointed out that their vascular system and muscle tissue had broken down, and, interestingly, that the biochemical and physiological state of animals that had been knocked down by a car were comparable to those of deer that had been hunted over long distances. The effect on the welfare of deer was further illustrated through examining behaviour patterns during the later stages of the hunt.
	A further, joint universities study on deer hunting was commissioned by the Countryside Alliance and interested parties such as stag hunts. It did not comment on the wider aspects of the behaviour of deer, but it considered all the biochemical factors. There are great similarities between the two studies, and very few differences.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Gibson: I am sorry, but I must move on.
	However, there was a major difference between the two studies in terms of interpreting results. The authors of the latter study disagreed with Bateson, maintaining that the physiological effects of hunting are merely those of exercise, with suffering restricted to perhaps the last 20 minutes before the kill. They argue that deer are well-adapted to being hunted by hounds.
	That is a narrow view of the demands placed on hunted deer, which are exhausted when they go to bay. The joint universities study likened their condition to that of an exhausted footballer, but it is many years since I have seen such a footballer. Given the size of modern squads, players are substituted before they become exhausted. None the less, such a comparison was drawn with an animal that is chased by a noisy pack of potential predators and suffers harassment from shouting human beingswe will still call them thatbut we should remember that fear itself is a great factor in causing stress. A deer is hardly the same as a self-motivated athlete.
	We need to consider what others have said about those two studies, and I shall quote one of the many eminent people who have reviewed them.
	Sir John Krebs, who was head of the department of zoology at Oxford university, became chief executive of the National Environmental Research Council and now heads the very successful Food Standards Agency, says that the essence of the findings in both studies is that red deer show certain physiological symptoms at the end of the hunt. He says that Bateson concluded that hunting causes a greater degree of suffering than does stalking. According to the summary paper that he has looked at, the new work does not shed significant new light on that question. I could mention other people with the same opinion.
	It has been argued that it is necessary to cull populations of animals. Bateson argued that the contribution of hunts to the necessary culling of red deer is small, and chasing wounded deer before killing them is not a contribution to the welfare of those injured in road accidents or entangled in fence wire. He recommended stalking, so he does recommend some degree of culling as against hunting.
	The supporters of the middle way option argue that it would guarantee an improvement in animal welfare and boldly attempt to merge that point with arguments about human liberty and freedombut we will ignore that one. Is it necessary to regulate animal populations, and will that lead to unregulated and uncontrolled killing? I have seen no published evidence showing that that will happen. It is a surmise by the proponents of that argument.
	We may need to cull populations, and Bateson agreed. Burns was ambivalent on the need to control foxes or any animals. The report said that
	landowners and gamekeepers consider that it is necessary.
	That is not the same as saying that it is necessary.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Burns report where it says, two paragraphs below the bit he has just quoted, that
	in upland areas, where the fox population causes more damage to sheep-rearing and game management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control, fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs?

Ian Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is no argument about the need in certain instances for some degree of culling. Bateson admits that and I agree, but the issue is how it is done and the extent of it. How many animals need to be killed to regulate a population? The urban fox studies in Bristol have shown clearly that no regulation is needed. The fox numbers go up when people feed them and down when the animals become infected with mange. The control and regulation of animal populations is done naturally. Studies from across the world show that. Territorial changes take place, with animals moving to bigger territories, or the animals' social interactions change. The animals control their own numbers.
	I understand what people say about the comparison of suffering being a complex matter, and it is. Is one animal suffering for many days worse in welfare terms than many animals suffering for a few hours? We do not know how much time deer wounded by stalkers spend suffering. However, at least Bateson made an effort to tackle the problem by obtaining some measurements on which we can make a judgment.
	Of course we need to make a moral judgment on whether culling is acceptable, but that will not rest only on the considerations that I have mentioned. It will also depend on the extent to which people who cull red deer knowingly inflict suffering and the extent to which the suffering inflicted by their method of culling may be minimised. Those are deep questions. In opposition to the views of some vets, about which we have heard, and the Middle Way Group, there is solid evidence that the regulation of populations of animals is controlled by a complex interaction of variables.
	The Burns report did not conclude that we would see an inexorable rise in fox numbers if we stopped culling them. He did not accept that argument, although he was put under pressure to do so. There are some reasons for culling, but the arguments on how it should be done and to what extent require serious and proper debate. There can be no compromise on the issue. A total ban is what the public want and there is no evidence that the middle way will benefit the welfare of animals or help to control numbers. It is not a time for political fudges but time to listen to the public, the science and the House of Commons.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that, in many ways, the debate is not particularly well informed. At the outset, I must declare my interest as a farmer who has hunted almost every season since the age of six and, I think, the only Member of the House to have ridden winners in point-to-points and under national hunt rules. So, I have a role to play in the debate, although which role depends on one's point of view.
	There have been two important events since we last debated the matter in the House. First, the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting is up and running, so it is worth describing exactly what it does. The authority is chaired by an independent retired High Court judge, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who has no bias and has seven independent commissioners who run the authority. All 11 hunt licensing bodies and all the hunts have signed up voluntarily to the authority, which has a considerable code of conduct, powers to fine masters a considerable sum and the ultimate power to suspend a hunt. On that basis, I recommend that the House seriously considers the supervision option.
	The second important event is the foot and mouth epidemic, which was catastrophic for people in rural areas. Above all, it led to a system under which everybody who goes hunting must fill in a form to say that they have hunted. In other words, we have a de facto licensing system. Taken together, the ISAH and the licensing system imposed by foot and mouth are an effective supervisory system. Having said that, I am sure that all my constituents and all my huntsI represent 10, at the last count, which is more than any other Member of Parliamentwould consider some form of licensing enshrined in statute.
	The foot and mouth crisis brought further misery on my constituents. We already know from parliamentary answers that 44,000 jobs have been lost in agriculture in the past three years, but the Burns report estimates that we will lose another 8,000 to 10,000 if we ban hunting, so anybody who votes for a ban is voting to put my constituents out of a job. [Interruption.] Those Labour Members who are laughing should be ashamed of themselves if they want to put my constituents out of a job.
	In a superb speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said that hunting is the glue that binds the rural areas together. He is absolutely right. Let me give two brief examples of why that is so. First, agriculture, which is already suffering, plays a good role in disposing of fallen stock. If we do not have the hunts, farmers will have to go to a great deal of trouble and expense to find someone, if there is a knackerman out there, to get rid of dead and fallen stock from the land.
	That is one example of hunts performing a useful role in rural areas; the second is less tangible, although it applies to all those in urban areas who like to go out into the countryside and enjoy it. The countryside was laid out as it is by our forefathers and by many of the current generation because they like hunting and enjoying the countryside in a proper environmental situation, so hunting is the glue that binds rural areas together. Often, hunts are the first to notice that stock has escaped on to a road and report it.
	As well as job losses caused by the foot and mouth crisis and the general decline in agriculture, we have suffered a decline in tourism since 11 September. Tourism draws a significant number of people and a significant amount of foreign exchange to this country. The hotels and the bed-and-breakfast accommodation in my area and in many others badly need tourism during the winter, and they depend on the hunting fraternity to fill them so that the businesses can survive.
	Some of the ignorance of the facts of the debate centres on the alternative methods of disposing of foxes. I was brought up in the countryside. I know how to use a high-powered rifle, and I can tell the House that, unless it is skilfully used, it is very difficult, particularly at night, to kill a fox with the first shot.
	In paragraph 60 of the summary and conclusions, the Burns report makes it clear that high-powered rifles can be used only in certain areas. A high-powered rifle of the sort necessary to kill a fox with one shot is lethal to a distance of well over a mile, so footpaths, buildings and, increasingly, the right to roam will restrict the areas in which such a weapon can be used. Burns says that a shotgun is not a suitable instrument for killing a fox, and anyone who has seen a fox in its lair, as I have, knows that it can suffer a slow and lingering death from shotgun wounds. Even worse, a fox that has been poisoned can go away and spend many days suffering from gangrene before it finally dies following the poisoning that has been inflicted.
	I would like to address the issue of imposing criminal sanctions on people who transgress any law that we might pass. Imposing criminal sanctions on anybody is a serious matter. The resources that we have to uphold the Queen's law in this country are always going to be scarce; there is always going to be a shortage of policemen. Do we really want to use them to chase around the countryside trying to arrest otherwise law-abiding hunting people? The reason that criminal sanctions are accepted in this country is that the generality of thinking by the majority of people is that a particular crime ought to be outlawed by society. We can all identify with murder, robbery and rape attracting criminal sanctions, but to make criminal those people who otherwise want to go about their lawful business, by banning hunting, does not seem to be a very good use of scarce resources.
	This country has always had a reputation for tolerance. In the 18th and 19th centuries, many poets, philosophers and authors came here because they would have been guillotined or otherwise executed in the rest of Europe, merely on account of their views. We have always been tolerant of minorities, and the way in which some hon. Members are laughing and chatting instead of listening to this speech shows that they are not tolerant of minorities, and that they do not really understand the issues. I would say to those hon. Members that, before they vote for a ban, they should think about putting my constituents out of a job, make sure that they have read the Burns report and understood it, and, above all, make sure that they are tolerant of minorities. It has been said:
	We have a fantastic wealth of history and tradition in Britain. You'd be a fool to want to turn your back on our past culture and achievements. I certainly do not.
	Those are the words of the Prime Minister on 30 April 1998, when he was doing a partisan issue for Country Life. I say to my constituents, Do not be beguiled by this Government saying that they will do a deal. Protest at every opportunity. We want to protect our minorities.

Lembit �pik: I used to back a ban on hunting with dogs. I changed my view on the basis of observation, of talking to people, and of having the courage of my convictions not to try to put through the measures that I started with, but to try to win the arguments on the way that seems to be right. Far from criticising the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I think that the fact that he was honest and courageous enough to say that he has changed his mind is at the heart of a debate that relates to conscience. The general public are changing their minds. Soon, perhaps, the House of Lords will change its mind. What kind of Chamber is this, if it is not willing seriously to contemplate an alternative such as that put forward by the Middle Way Group, if that is genuinely in the interest of the welfare of the animals that we seek to help and protect?
	Let us be clearthis debate is not about whether we kill foxes. All three options, including the ban option, acknowledge that it is acceptable in some circumstances to controlin other words, to killfoxes. Even the Scottish ban makes provision for various loopholes allowing the use of dogs. So, let us be clear that this debate is about improving the welfare of wild animals in a context in which we still kill such animals. Crucially, Lord Burns accepted that point. He accepted that, in some circumstances, killing a fox with dogs was not necessarily the most cruel way of doing it. It seems strange, therefore, that so many speakers in this debate are using Burns to argue something different. We all know that an animal's welfare is compromised if it is killed. The question for all of us is whether there is such compelling evidence about this one specific method that we should criminalise the people who think that it is the most fair.
	I do not support the status quo; nor do I agree with those who say that self-regulation has worked.

Malcolm Savidge: The hon. Gentleman says he does not support the status quo. Am I not right in thinking that he has voted for it in the past?

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman will find that I am voting against it this evening. Moreover, I do not see the relevance of his point to the philosophical and practical points that I am trying to make.
	I have spoken to an organisation called Protect Our Wild Animals. I am indebted to, in particular, Anita Knittel and Penny Little for the time they devoted to discussing the issue with me, although I accept that they are implacably supportive of a ban. Such cross- organisation dialogue has helped the Middle Way Group to develop its ideas.
	I know that I did not convince those two people, but they gave me a series of videos illustrating unequivocally the failure of self-regulation to do away with some of the harm and damage that hunts currently cause. Dogs killed on roads, dogs dead on railway tracks, the physical intimidation of individuals monitoring hunts and many examples of trespass were all on film.
	Let no one pretend that the Middle Way Group is sitting here saying that the status quo is acceptable. By the same token, however, although I understand why people support a banbecause I once did myselfI no longer believe that it will deliver the welfare benefits that we all say we want to achieve.
	Let us think about the contradictions. If welfare is the key issue, why are Members focusing on a method that, on their own admission, involves only 6 per cent. of fox kills? If the welfare of the fox is the primary concern, why are they not dealing with the 94 per cent. of kills that are carried out in other ways? If we care about animal welfare we must maximise the benefits of the regulations, and we will not do that by focusing on a minority pursuit. Let us also remember that the damage done by focusing on that minority pursuit is tremendously important to certain sectors of British communities, such as the fell packs and the mid-Wales packs. Lord Burns said explicitly that in those areas it is probably the best way in which to control the fox population.
	People describe the middle way as a compromise. That ignores what we are trying to do. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said that it was not possible to compromise on cruelty. What an irony! As we know from the Scottish so-called ban, the ban option itself is the biggest compromise on offer. As I have said, it does not deal with the 94 per cent. of foxes killed by other methods; but, even more important, it would be forced to include various exemptions that would not be necessary in the context of regulation. That is why the Middle Way Group regards the middle way not as a compromise, but as a potential solution in all our interests.
	Let me remind Members that we propose the establishment of an independent hunting authority with statutory powers to enforce a legally binding code of practice and tough penalties to ensure that it works. We want that to apply to all methods of fox control, not just one. Our proposal goes further than any other option in the Bill. [Interruption.] Shouting about it does not change the reality: the Middle Way Group has taken the issue very seriously indeed.
	We also propose the appointment of inspectorspaid for by a licence feewho could drop in unannounced on all hunts that must be licensed to ensure that the code was adhered to. Unlike a ban, the middle way does not depend on an overstretched police force to police the countryside. It would be manifestly ridiculous to imagine that it would have the necessary resources.
	I ask Members to acknowledgeeven if they have problems with the details of our proposalsthat we have created a coherent and comprehensive policy. Not only do we seek sincerely to ensure that all wild-mammal control is regulated; we do not expect a police force to implement a policy that it does not even consider to be workable.
	The idea has been tried elsewhere. There is licensing across Europe in many different ways. In Finland, for example, there is a sophisticated procedure that really works.
	We have heard a lot about polls. Hon. Members will know that the Middle Way Group has consistently improved its rating in the polls on tiny resources: on five-figure investment compared with the seven or eight-figure sums that the larger organisations have invested. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) cited polls. He will know not only that 47 per cent. cite regulation as acceptable, compared with 53 per cent. citing a ban as acceptablefar too close a call to justify a banbut that 64 per cent. said that it was not an issue that we should be discussing in Parliament.
	If our ideas are so weak, why have four directors of the League Against Cruel Sports decided that we have a more acceptable proposal? If our procedures are so weak, why do so many independent arbiters, including two out of three vets, think that there should be something other than a ban in the interests of animal welfare? I bet it is because they understand what a ban means and how limited its achievements would be.
	There is a public mood developingnot necessarily a public mood that hon. Members want to hear. It says, Do we really want to criminalise honest people who genuinely think they are doing the right thing and that they are not imposing cruelty? The Middle Way Group is looking not for victories but for solutions. Long after the foxhunting debate ends in this Chamber, we will be picking up the pieces of the results in the wider community. We have not been rich, except in our idea, which seems to have gained some resonance.
	We do not ask hon. Members to feel a sense of victory or defeatquite the opposite. We ask hon. Members to think sincerely about our proposals, to accept that, whatever they think the flaws of our idea are, we have tried to reach out to people on all sides and improved our proposals on the basis of that.
	The Middle Way Group proposals may not be perfect but they are a genuine attempt to move the debate forward. Again, should there be a split decision between this Chamber and the upper House, we hope that hon. Members will do what the Minister said they should do at the beginning: have a constructive and positive dialogue towards a result. If we achieve that, we will have proved that conscience votes are exactly what they say: votes based on commitment and principle, not on personalisation and emotion.
	The Middle Way Group stands up to be counted in what it has put forward. I hope that in the months ahead we can achieve something significant, something humane and something that is practical and fair, and that hon. Members will find it in their hearts to think about our proposals and to vote for them in the minutes ahead.

Henry Bellingham: I will be brief because hon. Members have come here this evening not to hear me but to hear the winding-up speeches and to vote in about 20 minutes.
	I should declare an interest as well because I used to hunt a great deal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. CliftonBrown), I have ridden in point-to-points and under rules, and have had some winners, so he is not the only hon. Member who has won a race. I also own two bits of land across which the hunt comes from time to time.
	I do not believe that this debate has anything to do with Labour's concern about the welfare of foxes, deer or hares. It has much more to do with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. It also has quite a bit to do with Labour's concern about membership of the party. I saw a letter that was sent to Back Benchers from Millbank, which says:
	Retention of members
	of the Labour party
	is our most important activity . . . make the most of legislation coming up
	in the near future
	such as the free vote on hunting with dogs on March 18,
	so I do not think that this debate has anything to do with Labour's concern about the welfare of foxes.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, we should be debating issues that really concern people such as health, transport, education and housing. If I were to knock on 50 doors in my constituency and asked people what the top 50 issues were, I do not believe that hunting would crop up once. People are not that concerned about it.
	In the past, the opinion polls showed a majority of people in favour of banning hunting, but the results are very different when the question asked is, Do you want to criminalise and lock up the people who go hunting? My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) spoke about recent opinion polls, as did the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). In an NOP Solutions poll only four days ago, 48 per cent. said that they supported hunting being made a criminal offence, and 49 per cent. said that hunting should continue. Of that 49 per cent., 22 per cent. thought that it should continue in its present form, and 27 per cent. supported licensing. In other words, 1 per cent. more were in favour of keeping hunting in one form or another, so I do not believe that there is an overwhelming demand to get rid of hunting.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) pointed out, there are other animal welfare issues that cause concernissues such as experiments on animals, and welfare on farms and in slaughterhouses. Let us consider welfare on pig farms. I saw in the papers this weekend a story about the Labour Chief Whip in the Lords. On a farm that he owns, pigs were crammed illegally into tiny pens, where they had no room to turn round or lie down. Others were said to have died from heat exhaustion and related conditions. I tend to agree with Joyce d'Silva, the director of Compassion in World Farming, who said:
	I am appalled[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.

Henry Bellingham: Joyce d'Silva said:
	I am appalled that a member of the Government allegedly was linked to the keeping of animals in illegal conditions.
	We should be discussing the welfare of farm animals, not hunting.
	Many hon. Members have spoken about cruelty. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer,) who said that there is cruelty in any form of field sport. Of course there is. There is cruelty in shooting. There is cruelty in fishing. There is particular cruelty in coarse fishing. There is cruelty in any form of killing animals. There is cruelty in slaughterhouses. We eat meat for our pleasure. We wear leather shoes for our pleasure. Any form of killing animals is cruel, but the question is how cruel it is.
	I believe strongly, as a number of hon. Members have argued this evening, that if we ban hunting, foxes will suffer more and more. More foxes will be shot, snared or gassed. As we heard a number of times this evening, a fox that is shot is rarely killed cleanly. Frequently, the fox will be wounded and it will die a lingering death from gangrene.
	I shall deal with the social fabric of hunting in the community. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said, hunting is crucial in many areas. At a time when foot and mouth has caused devastation in the countryside, hunting may provide only a small number of jobsperhaps 6,000, 10,000 or 14,000but every one of those jobs is precious and deserves our concern and our interest.
	If it were not for hunting, we would not have point-to-point racing. Point-to-point racing depends on hunting. If it were not for hunting, we would not have the knackerman. In my constituency, when farmers have fallen stock, or a pony that is too old and needs putting down, it is the hunt that comes along and removes that cow or sheep, or puts down that pony. If hunting goes, the knackerman goes.
	Finally, we are dealing with the freedom of the individual. The Prime Minister has made a great deal of noise about tolerance in our society. We do not want any more divisions in this society, and by picking on a minority we will sow a huge amount of discontent in the countryside, a great deal of anger and many more divisions. That is why this evening I will vote firmly against a ban and if we do not win that vote, I will vote for the middle way.

Ann Winterton: I want to sum up after a very interesting debate in which there have been good contributions from Members on both sides of the House. There have been some starsthe hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) was, as ever, courageous, full of common sense and had the best motives in supporting the middle way. The biggest star of all was my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who was scintillatinga real tour de force. He reflected the view of the countryside and of Yorkshire.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) showed equal courage in changing his view and deciding not to vote for a total ban. He gave his speech amid much heckling from his own side. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave a thoughtful and philosophical speech that even preached tolerance. In contrast, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was as feisty as ever but her arguments would, at a stroke, have brought to an end all angling competitions, which would not be very popular.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) repeated a point that was made many times: there is no compelling public interest in introducing a ban on hunting and, in his view, it should not be part of the criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made his usual passionate speech. As the voice of Wales in this debate, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred to the cruelty in the Animal Health Bill and in the Government's proposals. There was a trenchant contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who is going to buy me a drink later, was as articulate as ever in promoting the middle way option.
	We have heard powerfully held views on both sides of the argumentsome polarised and others more reflective. Many speakers have commented on the timing of the debate, which they believe is insensitive and a distraction from more important national and animal welfare issues.
	In a matter of individual judgment and conscience, there are practical difficulties, some of which were not addressed, especially by Labour Members. What will replace hunting? How will the fox population in particular be controlled, especially when they are predatory? Will gassing, poisoning or shooting be the answer? What of the wounding of animals after they have been shot and the lack of retrieval of the wounded? Is that not an issue? Is hunting not the more humane method of controlling the fox population?
	I do not envy the Minister. He is in a difficult situation, but it is of the Government's making. At the end of the day, this is a class warfare issuewe saw that rear its ugly head during the debate. It is nothing to do with animal welfare. This is them against the countryside. This is class warfare on the Labour Benches, while on this side of the House the argument is freedom, freedom, freedom. 9.54 pm

Alun Michael: I said that I hoped that the House would rise to the occasion, as it sometimes does in a difficult and contentious debate that ends in a free vote. That is difficult when an issue has been debated on many occasions, so it is to the credit of the House that the quality of debate tonight has been high.
	Let us remember that the Government have stayed neutral on this issue; right hon. and hon. Members have made this a parliamentary issue that has to be resolved. The normal mechanisms of the private Member's Bill or Back-Bench amendments have not enabled Parliament to reach a conclusion. Neither the Burns report nor enabling the three campaigning groups to give legislative form to their preferred option revealed a simple way forward. There is no magic wand. This debate is the first stage of a process that rightly starts with listening to Members of this House. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that they will not have wasted their time in this debate or in the Lobby.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said that the Government are entitled to have a debate on hunting. Actually, it is the House that is entitled to have a debate on hunting. He made an entertaining speech, but he is clearly unaware of the Government's efforts to aid rural recovery, to support parish councils and to help the enormous success of your countryside, you're welcome by supporting some 50 organisations in promoting visits to the countryside and bridging the perceived divide between town and country. He is unaware of our work to implement the rural White Paper, even in a year when foot and mouth disease swept the country.
	This is not a town versus country debate. It is a debate on three motions to enable all Members to exercise their individual vote.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: I shall not give way; we have cut our speeches to give Members a chance to contribute.
	It is nice to see tonight's turnout of Conservative Members, who are rarely present when we debate rural issues in the House. [Interruption.]

Ann Winterton: rose

Alun Michael: No, I shall not give way.
	There were some puzzling contributions, such as that of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who did not explain whether his opposition to whale hunting is based on a belief that it is a sin or a crime. We are legislators.
	I reject the view of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who is a nationalist and not a supporter of devolution, that the House should abrogate its responsibility on a non-devolved issue. I was disappointed to hear the class warrior, the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), allege arrogance on the part of Government in allowing time for debate. We have made it clear that education, health, transport and care for the elderly are our priorities. All MPs who want this matter to be dealt with have said time and again that it is not their most important issue, but that it needs to be brought to a conclusion. I understand that message, which was made with passion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) dealt with how things could be done and with the principle.
	There were some excellent contributions, with a good deal of memorable wit and humour. If I had to choose one sentence of advice to the House, it would be from the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who said that neither side should assume that the views of the other have been reached on the basis of prejudice. She was not suggesting that we should listen to the views of others and always accept them. Conservative Members will have noticed that she made a robust contribution and argued passionately for a ban on hunting. Hers was a challenge to listen and think.
	In pursuing our beliefs, we should be practical about the application of any principle. Often, when pursuing a principle, the devil is in the detail, and those whose views we dislike may say things that are worth hearing. That is why I have listened tonight to opinions on all sides of the argument. I will listen to all sides in the other place tomorrow. Of course I will have regard to the votes cast on the three motions tonight. Respect for democracy requires attention to basic arithmetic. That is the point of having a vote.
	I must refute the suggestion that a deal is being done behind closed doors, or that there is to be a sell-out. I ask hon. Members to cast that notion aside, and to accept that the Government are trying to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. That was the commitment that we made in our manifesto at the time of the election. This is an issue for Parliament, and our commitment is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. Having been given that responsibility, I shall do my best to ensure that the process has integrity, and that Parliament can reach a conclusion. After the two days of debate, I shall come to the House to make a statement on the way forward, and I hope that I shall carry the House with me. It is now time for Members to express their choice.

Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 401.

Question accordingly negatived.

HUNTING WITH DOGS: HUNTING UNDER LICENCE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day],
	That this House considers that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be required to be regulated in accordance with arrangements similar to those set out in Schedule 2 to the Hunting Bill as introduced into the Commons last session [Bill 2].[Alun Michael.]
	The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 371.

Question accordingly negatived.

HUNTING WITH DOGS: BAN

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day],
	That this House considers that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be prohibited in accordance with provision similar to Schedule 3 to the Hunting Bill as introduced in the Commons last Session [Bill 2].[Alun Michael.]
	The House divided: Ayes 386, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community Documents.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

European Transport Policy

That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 11932/01, Commission White Paper: European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide, and No. 12597/01, draft decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending decision No. 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on these document.

Cosmetic Products

That this House takes note of the unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 14th November 2001 from the Department of Trade and Industry on the amended draft Directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of member states relating to cosmetic products; and welcomes it as a positive step towards maintaining the current high levels of protection for human health and safety whilst promoting animal welfare. [Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 90) (HC 611), which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

Government Trading Funds

That the draft Royal Mint Trading Fund (Extension and Variation) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

Electricity

That the draft Electricity and Gas (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Social Security Administration Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.[Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders, etc., orders),
	That the draft Regulatory Reform (Golden Jubilee Licensing) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.[Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.

FIRE SAFETY (STORAGE PREMISES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Stringer.]

Helen Jones: I am pleased to have this short Adjournment debate on the question of fire safety in warehouse distribution and storage premises. My interest in the matter arose from a fire that took place in my constituency in premises that were used for food storage and distribution. However, it is fair to say that there are several constituencies such as mine which, because of their position on the way to a port or at the junction of several motorways, have acquired a large number of distribution premises, so we need to take a particular interest in ensuring the safety of those buildings and of those who work in them.
	I visited the site of the fire in Warrington after it took place with officers from the Cheshire fire service. I wish to place on record my appreciation of those officers for the work they do generally and also for their patience in answering my questions on points that must have seemed to them blatantly obvious. The mistakes in what I am going to say are mine: the good bits are probably theirs.
	What was obvious, even to someone like me, was the startling speed with which the fire took hold. The premises were not far from the local fire station and officers were on the scene in a few minutes. Nevertheless, the building had partly collapsed 15 minutes after the fire had started and the firefighters had to withdraw. Within 30 minutes, the building had totally collapsed. It was completely burned out, together with several lorries that had been parked nearby.
	Cheshire fire service estimates that the immediate cost of the fire was some 30 million. Other costs are more difficult to quantify, but they include damage to business, loss of jobs and damage to the environment. Sad to say, fires in such premises are not rare. It is difficult to get exact figures because of the way in which records are kept, but an answer my hon. Friend the Minister gave me on 25 October 2001 showed that, in the nine years to 1999, there had been between 702 and 883 fires in storage and distribution premises. Many of those fires will, thankfully, have been small, with the damage resulting from smoke or late calls.
	It is not unusual for blazes to occur in such premises. Indeed, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association considers that the figures are much higher. It believes that some 25 per cent. of the fires that occur in the retail and distribution and industrial and transport categories are warehouse fires. It puts the number at some several thousand each year.
	Many of those fires are serious. The Fire Protection Association estimates that there have been some 240 large fires in warehouse distribution and storage premises since 1990, leading to insured losses of hundreds of millions of pounds. Its figures are likely to be an underestimate, because it deals only with fires that cost more than 50,000 and it believes that insurers do not report all losses to it.
	It is strange that we allow that situation to continue when we could do simple things to minimise the risk, such as changing building regulations and ensuring that sprinklers are fitted.
	Although approved document B on fire safety recommends that sprinklers be fitted in single storey retail buildings, it does not do the same for single storey warehouse premises, which reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the sector has developed. Single storey buildings may be very large indeed, covering up to 140,000 sq m, and may be up to 30 m high. The nature of the business demands that the most cost-effective use of space be made, so buildings are often densely packed and goods stored on high racking systems.
	That in itself poses a danger to the people who work there and any firefighters who have to tackle a blaze. Fires can spread very quickly in such an environment. Indeed, research by the Building Research Establishment shows that fires started in a flue formed by boxes stacked on 10 m racking more often than not reach the top of the stack within two minutes. Multiplying that by the amount of goods and racking in big buildings gives some idea of the scale of the problem.
	The problem is compounded by the fact that many modern buildings often have no windows and few doors, which makes it difficult for people to get out and extremely difficult for firefighters to gain access if there is a blaze. Once inside, they may find themselves dealing with fires that are above ground level, approachable only through a maze of unprotected steelwork and facing the hazard of that steelwork collapsing during the fire.
	A further hazard is caused by the sandwich panels that are often used in such buildings to create a closed environment in which food may be kept chilled, although they are used for other food hygiene purposes as well. Such panels usually have an inner core sandwiched between sheets of galvanised metal, usually steel, and PVC fixing. That inner core may consist of several materials, usually polystyrene or a mix of polystyrene and rock wool. As such, it is highly inflammable.
	Approved document B sets out the hazards of such a constructionit may cause toxic black smoke in a fire, it allows fire to spread unseen in the sandwich panels and it may create flashoversand a number of fire services have reported on the problems it causes. For example, the Norfolk fire service reported on a fire in 1995 that it believes started against the outside wall of a building. The heat transferred through the wall and ignited the sandwich panels. The fire then spread inside.
	The London fire brigade graphically described a fire in these terms:
	The heat caused the polystyrene filling to melt and the metal sheets to distort. The heat and fire travelled through the panels and into the false ceiling and through the remainder of the sandwich panels.
	Humberside fire brigade has reported on several such fires, one of which destroyed a building.
	The cost of all those fires is hard to estimate because of the way in which we keep our records, but we ought to include in the equation not just the insurance costs, which, in the end, we all pay, but the cost of fighting the fires, the benefits paid to those who unfortunately lose their jobs, the revenue loss to the Exchequer when firms cease to trade and clearing up the resultant environmental pollution.
	The Warrington fire took place at a food distribution depot, so afterwards residents nearby suffered what I can only describe as a plague of flies, which were attracted to the food. I was surprised to find that milk, which we think of as harmless, can seriously pollute a water course if it gets in after a fire, and clearing it up costs a great deal.
	Set against those costs, the cost of providing sprinklers in these buildings is negligible. Cheshire fire service estimated that the cost of putting sprinklers into the building in Warrington when it was built 10 years ago would have been about 30,000, which is nothing by comparison with the cost of the fire.
	I am not primarily making an economic argument, however, although I believe that it is a strong one. My argument is about the safety of the public. The people who work in these buildings, and the firefighters who have to go into them to tackle the fires, face unacceptable risks which could be greatly reduced. The theory has been that single-storey retail buildings required sprinklers where possible, because of the possible loss of life. The same did not apply, however, to single-storey warehouse buildings. I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that the situation on the ground is much more complicated than that.
	These buildings are very large. They are often crammed with goods and can be difficult to get out of. The fire service knows that, in these circumstances, managers are often reluctant to confirm that everybody has got out of the building. If that happens, firefighters have a duty to enter the building and search it whenever possible. When they do so, they face hidden fires, toxic smoke and the possible collapse of panelling and racking around them. That is an unacceptable risk for any public servant to have to face when it is not necessary to do so.
	In these cases, it is certainly not necessary, because we have known what needs to be done for many years. Committees have reported to successive Governments about what needs to happen with these buildings, but the measures have never been enforced. As far back as 1946, the post-war building studies that aimed to learn the lessons from firefighting in the second world war recommended that warehouses of more than 10,000 sq ft should have sprinklers fitted. I am not very good at converting feet into metres, but I think that that is about 940 sq m, a tiny area by comparison with the buildings that we are dealing with here.
	In 1970, a departmental committee on the fire service under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Holroyd drew attention to the fact that fires could spread unseen in this type of building, and recommended the installation of sprinklers and automatic fire alarms. A report produced for the Home Office in 1980 suggested that 90 per cent. of our industrial buildings could effectively be protected by sprinklers. Yet we have not legislated for this. We prefer the risk assessment option, but that option has clearly not worked. We continue to have a great many of these fires, and people continue to be put at risk.
	It is time for the Government to act. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I know many local authorities, including my own, that are very concerned about these buildings. They are afraid to act on their own, however, because they are afraid of chasing away jobs and investment. What is needed is Government action. We should, through our building regulations, be limiting the size of unsprinklered compartments to 2,000 sq m, and requiring the fitting of sprinklers in buildings such as these.
	I hope that the Minister will also think seriously about ensuring that proper research is carried out into the use of alternative materials for sandwich panels and, if possible, about moving to require non-combustible cores to be used in them. I hope that, in any regulatory impact assessment that is undertaken, we will put into the equation not only the insurance costs but all the other costs that I have mentioned, which we, as members of the public, have to pay in the end.
	The issue is about more than cost, as I have said. It is about whether we are prepared to put people's lives at risk inside these buildings. We hear a lot about reducing red tape, and I am not in favour of imposing unnecessary bureaucracy on anyone. However, I am not in favour of removing a single piece of red tape if it puts someone's life at risk.
	I think my constituents who work in such buildings are being put at unnecessary risk, and I think that those in the fire service who have to deal with fires in them are also being put at unnecessary risk. I hope we will act to minimise that risk in the future. I hope we do not have to wait until, tragically, someone is seriously injured or killed before the necessity to act has been realised. We have seen that happen in the case of retail buildings; we should not wait for a similar tragedy to happen in a large single-storey warehouse before being prepared to amend the regulations to deal with such warehouses.

Alan Whitehead: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing the debate, and on her speech. She clearly takes considerable interest in the subject, not least because of local experience, and she also has great expertise. She has raised this important issue not just in written parliamentary questions, but in early-day motion 241.
	I am concerned about the number of fires that occur each year in all buildings, not just those that occur on warehouse, distribution and storage premises. This is a serious matter. It is important to learn lessons from fires that have occurred, and important for us all to take reasonable steps to prevent lossesand not just those in relation to death and injurythrough fires.
	The last decade has seen a considerable increase in the number and size of single-storey warehouse buildings. However, when we consult the supporting fire statistics we note that the occurrence of death and injury has remained reasonably static during the last seven years, and, in comparison with those in other buildings, is thankfully very low. I refer to the last seven years because our fire reporting system was revised in 1994, and before that a separate category for warehouses did not exist. According to our provisional figures for 2000 there were 630 recorded fires in warehouse-type buildings in England and Wales, giving rise to 30 injuries andI am glad to sayno deaths.
	My hon. Friend raised a number of issues relating to potential fire hazards on single-storey warehouse, distribution and storage premises. As in her early-day motion, she called for the building regulations to limit the compartment size of such single-storey buildings, and to require the installation of sprinklers in buildings where compartments exceed 2,000 sq m and the use of only non-combustible cores in all sandwich panels.
	The building regulationswhich are important in terms of the regulation of construction of such buildingsapply to most building work undertaken in England and Wales, typically the erection or extension of a building. The fire safety aspects of the regulations are intended to secure reasonable standards of health and safety for persons in or about buildings. However, they do not in themselves address economic loss or the effect of fire on the environment. The issue of economic loss is generally something that individual companies, in liaison with their insurers, are best placed to quantify. They are also best placed to establish what additional measures may be necessary to reduce the potential risk of property damage or business interruption from fire.
	As my hon. Friend said, guidance on fire safety measures that will meet the requirements of the building regulations is given in approved document B, on fire safety. The guidance aims to ensure that buildings are as safe as can reasonably be expected, while giving designers as much flexibility as possible. The latest edition of approved document B, which came into force on 1 July 2000, includes a new provision limiting the compartment size of single-storey shops to 2,000 sq m, where previously there was no limit. The provision suggests, however, that where sprinklers are provided there should be no limit to the floor area of compartments. The need to restrict compartment size in single-storey shops was first proposed following a number of high-profile fires in large supermarket and DIY-type outlets, which led to concern about public and firefighter safety.
	It is important to note that the definition of shop, as given in approved document B, includes premises used
	for a retail trade or business.
	It therefore generally includes all single-storey retail buildings, including the increasingly popular discount warehouse-type stores that are open to the public.
	The provision of a 2,000 sq m threshold was set after consideration of the comments that were received as part of a much larger public consultation on approved document B, which closed in March 1998. The original proposal was for a compartment size threshold of 4,000 sq m in single-storey shop premises. However, we considered that a threshold of 2,000 sq m would ensure an even greater level of safety for occupants and firefighters alike.
	The decision to limit the guidance on the use of sprinklers in the 2000 edition of approved document B to single-storey shops, as opposed to other types of building such as warehouses, was based on the central fact that there is greater potential for loss of lives in fires in shops. That is because of the large number of people who will be present within a shop, the fact that they will generally be unfamiliar with their surroundings and the level of managerial control that can be placed on members of the public, which is somewhat different from that which can be placed on staff in, say, a warehouse-type building. The decision to provide such guidance on single-storey shops was arrived at following a full regulatory impact assessment.
	Owing to the recognised fact that the level of risk to occupants and firefighters can increase with height, the approved document already suggests maximum compartment volumes, both with and without sprinklers, for multi-storey storage-type buildings.
	My hon. Friend suggested that only non-combustible core materials should be used for sandwich panels that are provided within single-storey warehouse and distribution buildings. The 2000 edition of approved document B offers guidance for the first time on the use of sandwich panels within buildings generally. The approved document recognises that the potential for problems in fires involving non-combustible cores is less than those for polymeric core materials and offers guidance accordingly.
	The guidance suggests the type of core materials, including polymeric, that may be used in various circumstances, and recommends that where deviation from that guidance occurs, a risk assessment should be undertaken and appropriate additional fire precautions put in place. It also offers design recommendations in relation to the associated jointing and fixing systems that typically support such panel installations.
	Given those amendments to approved document B, there are no immediate plans to introduce further amendments in relation to other single-storey premises. However, we are continuing to keep the issue under review. As with any new guidance within an approved document, any decision with regard to single-storey premises would need to take account of a range of views and expert advice, and be subject to a full regulatory impact assessment.
	We shall consult in the summer on proposals for the reform of fire safety legislation for buildings in use, using an order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. The purpose of the reform is to rationalise and modernise fire safety legislation, which is currently spread over numerous different statutes. It would provide for a risk-based approach to fire safety allowing more efficient and more effective enforcement by the fire service. We shall also aim to remove legislative overlap where possible.
	Under our proposals, warehouses in use would be subject to one fire safety regime, which will apply to all occupants, not just employees. We shall also be considering whether the regime may protect people in the vicinity of a warehouse in case of fire. I would stress that the reformed legislation will not be prescriptive, but require fire precautions to be provided on the basis of risk assessment. Employers will be free to arrive at their own fire safety solutions so long as they meet the basic and central fire safety requirements. The regulatory reform order giving effect to these changes will, of course, be subject to a full regulatory impact assessment.
	In the mean time, and in order to address concerns that have been raised in relation to large warehouse-type buildings, my Department has supported and contributed to the development of a guide for fire precautions in large storage and distribution buildings. The working group that has produced the guide was chaired by a member of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, and the Fire Brigades Union is also a member of the working group.
	The guide will provide information and advice on issues to be considered in relation to fire precautions and firefighting in large warehouse-type buildings. It has been written to assist developers, designers, property owners and managers in satisfying their statutory duties and aiding their commercial considerations.
	In addition, the guide is intended to assist building control bodies and fire authorities to take an informed and consistent approach to the application of building regulations, firefighting precautions and the enforcement of fire precautions legislation, with respect to warehouse and distribution buildings. I understand that the guide is soon to be published by the Fire Protection Association.
	My hon. Friend expressed concerns about ongoing fire safety in warehouses and the fact that even warehouses that are not frequented by a large number of members of the public often have poor escape routes. She suggested that that was a further cause for anxiety. In addition to guidance note B, there are fire precautions that are required in warehouses once they are in use. Those are normally governed by the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 and, where the warehouse has been designated as a factory, by the Fire Precautions Act 1971.
	The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations apply to virtually all places where people are employed to work, not just to retail establishments. The regulations, together with the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, require employers, first, to carry out a fire risk assessment; secondly, to identify the significant findings of the risk assessment; thirdly, to provide and maintain such fire precautions as are necessary to safeguard those who use the workplace; and lastly, to provide information, instruction and training to employees about the fire precautions.
	Where certain processes are carried out at a warehouse, it may be designated as a factory and may therefore require a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The fire certificate will be prepared by the fire authority, which in practice will be the local fire brigade. Before issuing a fire certificate, fire brigade officers will inspect the premises and satisfy themselves that adequate fire precautions are in place including the means of escape in case of fire, the means of fighting fire, and the means of giving warning in case of fire.
	As with the building regulations, fire safety legislation is concerned with life safety. The requirement for any fire safety measure, such as a sprinkler system, will be determined according to whether it is necessary for the protection of employees or other occupants of the building.
	I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates from my remarks that we fully recognise the importance of fire safety in all buildings, including warehouse, distribution and storage premises. I can assure her that the merits of any changes to the fire safety guidance in support of warehouse-type buildings will be a subject for consideration as part of our regulatory reform order proposals, on which we will be consulting over the summer, and any future revisions of the building regulations.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.